E 

433 


BANCROFT 

LIBRARY 

<• 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


SPEECH 

o. 


OF 


Avv\e»le( 

HON.HSrA.  DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS, 


AGAIHT3T 


THE  ADMISSION  OF  KANSAS 


UNDER 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION- 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  MARCH  22,  1858. 


WASHINGTON: 

'     1858. 


•XL 


SPEECH 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  Stats 
into  the  Union — 

Mr.  DOUGLAS  said  : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  I  know  not  that  my  strength  is  sufficient  to  en 
able  me  to  present  to-night  the  views  which  I  should  like  to  submit 
upon  the  question  now  under  consideration.  My  sickness  for  the  last 
two  weeks  has  deprived  me  of  the  pleasure  of  listening  to  the  debates, 
and  of  an  opportunity  of  reading  the  speeches  that  have  been  made ; 
hence  I  shall  not  be  able  to  perform  the  duty  which  might  naturally 
have  been  expected  of  me,  of  replying  to  any  criticisms  that  may  have 
been  presented  upon  my  course,  or  upon  my  speeches,  or  upon  my  re 
port.  I  must  content  myself  with  presenting  my  views  upon  the 
questions  that  are^  naturally  brought  up  by  the  bill  under  considera 
tion.  I  trust,  however,  that  I  may  be  pardoned  for  referring  briefly, 
in  the  first  instance,  to  my  course  upon  the  slavery  question  during 
the  period  that  I  have  had  a  seat  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 

When  I  entered  Congress,  in  1843,  I  found  upon  the  statute-book 
the  evidence  of  a  policy  to  adjust  the  slavery  question  and  avoid  sec 
tional  agitation  by  a  geographical  line  drawn  across  the  continent, 
separating  free  territory  from  slave  territory.  That  policy  had  its 
origin  at  the  beginning  of  this  government,  and  had  prevailed  up  to 
that  time.  In  178*7,  while  the  convention  was  in  session,  forming  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation 
adopted  the  ordinance  of  1787,  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  the  territory 
northwest  of  the  Ohio  river.  The  first  Congress  that  assembled  under 
the  Constitution  extended  all  the  provisions  of  that  ordinance,  with 
the  exception  of  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery,  to  the  territory  south 
of  that  river,  thus  making  the  Ohio  river  the  dividing  line  between 
free  territory  and  slave  territory,  free  labor  and  slave  labor. 

Subsequently,  after  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  when  Missouri,  a 
portion  of  that  territory,  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State,  the  same  policy  was  carried  out  by  adopting  the  parallel  of  36° 
30'  north  latitude,  from  the  western  border  of  Missouri,  as  far  west 
ward  as  our  territory  then  extended,  as  the  barrier  between  free  ter 
ritory  upon  the  one  side,  and  slave  territory  upon  the  other. 

Thus  the  question  stood  when  I  first  entered  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  I  examined  the  question  when  the  proposition  was 
made  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  in  1845 ;  and  though  I  was  unable 
io  vindicate  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line  upon  sound  political 
principles,  still,  finding  that  it  had  been  in  existence  from  the  begin 
ning  of  the  government,  had  been  acquiesced  in  up  to  that  time  by 


the  North  and  by  the  Sjouth,  and  that  it  had  its  origin  in  patriotic 
motives,  I  was  anxious  to  abide  by  and  perpetuate  that  policy  rather 
than  open  the  slavery  agitation,  and  create  sectional  strife  and  heart 
burning  by  attempting  to  restore  the  government  to  those  great  prin 
ciples  which  seemed  to  me  to  be  more  consistent  with  the  right  of 
self-government,  upon  which  our  institutions  rest.  For  this  reason  I 
cordially  acquiesced,  in  1845,  in  the  insertion  into  the  resolutions  for 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  of  a  clause  extending  the  Missouri  compro 
mise  line  through  the  Kepublic  of  Texas  so  fa«r  westward  as  the  new 
acquisition  might  reach.  I  not  only  acquiesced  in  and  supported  the 
measure  then,  but  I  did  it  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  continuing  that 
line  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  so  soon  as  we  should  acquire  the  territory. 
Accordingly,  in  1848,  when  we  had  acquired  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and 
California,  from  the  Kepublic  of  Mexico,  and  the  question  arose  in 
this  body  in  regard  to  the  kind  of  government  which  should  be  estab 
lished  therein,  the  Senate,  on  my  motion,  adopted  a  proposition  to 
extend  the  Missouri  compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  with  the 
same  understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.  The 
Journal  of  the  Senate  contains  the  following  entry  of  that  proposition : 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  DOUGLAS  to  amend  the  bill,  section  fourteen,  line  one,  by  inserting' 
after  the  word  'enacted:'  'That  the  line  of  3G°  30'  of  north  latitude,  known  as  the 
Missouri  compromise  line,  as  denned  by  the  eighth  section  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to* 
authorize  the  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  govern 
ment,  and  for  the  admission  of  said  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equality  with  the  original 
States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  Territories,"  approved  March  6,  1820,  be,  and 
the  same  is  hereby,  declared  to  extend  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  the  said  eighth  section, 
together  with  the  compromise  therein  effected,  is  hereby  revived,  and  declared  to  be  in- 
full  force  and  binding  for  the  future  organization  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted/ 

"It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas  32,  nays  21. 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  BALDWIN,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  desired  by  one- fifth  of  the. 
senators  present, 

"Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  are — 

"Messrs.  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Benton,  Berrien,  Borland,  Bright,  Butler,  Calhoun, 
Cameron,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dickinson,  Douglas,  Downs,  Fitzgerald,  Foote,  Hannegan,, 
Houston,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Maryland,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Johnson  of  Georgia, 
King,  Lewis,  Mangum,  Mason,  Metcalfe,  Pearce,  Sebastian,  Spruance,  Sturgeon,  Turneyr 
and  Underwood. 

"Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  are — 

"Messrs.  Allen,  Atherton,  Baldwin,  Bradbury,  Breese,  Clarke,  Corwin,  Davis  of  Massa 
chusetts,  Payton,  Dix,  Dodge,  Felch,  Green,  Hale,  Hamlin,  Miller,  Nijes,  Phelps, 
Upham,  Walker,  and  Webster. 

"  So  the  proposed  amendment  was  agreed  to." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  proposition  offered  by  me  to  extend  the 
Missouri  compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  ocean  in  the  same  sense  and  with 
the  same  understanding  with  which  itwas  originally  adopted,  was  agreed 
to  by  the  Senate  t>y  a  majority  of  twelve.  When  the  bill  was  sent  to 
tbe  House  of  Representatives,  that  provision  was  stricken  out,  I  think, 
by  thirty-nine  majority.  By  that  vote  the  policy  of  separating  free 
territory  from  slave  territory,  by  a  geographical  line,  was  abandoned 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  my  purpose  on  this 
occasion  to  inquire  whether  the  policy  was  right  or  wrong  ;  whether 
its  abandonment  at  that  time  was  wise  or  unwise  ;  that  is  a  question 
long  since  consigned  to  history,  and  I  leave  it  to  that  tribunal  to  de 
termine.  I  only  refer  to  it  now  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  view 
which  I  then  took  of  the  question.  It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to 


the  votes  in  the  (Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  that  southern 
men  in  a  body  voted  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  compromise 
line,  and  a  very  large  majority  of  the  northern  men  voted  against  it. 
The  argument  then  made  against  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line  was 
one  which  upon  principle  it  was  difficult  to  answer.  It  was  urged  that 
if  slavery  was  wrong  north  of  the  line,  it  could  not  he  right  south  of 
the  line ;  that  if  it  was  unwise,  impolitic,  and  injurious  on  the  one  side,  it 
could  not  he  wise,  politic,  and  judicious  upon  the  other  ;  that  if  the 
people  should  be  left  to  decide  the  question  for  themselves  on  the  one 
side,  they  should  be  entitled  to  the  same  privilege  on  the  other.  I 
thought  these  arguments  were  difficult  to  answer  upon  principle.  The 
only  answer  urged  was,  that  the  policy  had  its  origin  in  patriotic  mo 
tives,  in  fraternal  feeling,  in  that  brotherly  affection  which  ought  to 
animate  all  the  citizens  of  a  common  country  ;  and  that,  for  the  sake 
of  peace  and  harmony  and  concord,  we  ought  to  adhere  to  and  pre 
serve  that  policy.  Under  these  considerations,  I  not  only  voted  for  it, 
but  moved  it,  and  lamented  as  much  as  any  man  in  the  coun 
try  its  failure  ;  because  that  failure  precipitated  us  into  a  sectional 
strife  and  agitation,  the  like  of  which  had  never  before  been  witnessed 
in  the  United  States,  and  which  alarmed  the  wisest,  the  purest,  and 
the  best  patriots  in  the  land  for  the  safety  of  the  Republic. 

You  all  recollect  the  agitation  which  raged  through  this  land  from 
1848  to  1850,  and  which  was  only  quieted  by  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  the  latter  year.  You  all  remember  how  the  venerable  sage  and 
patriot  of  Ashland  was  called  forth  from  his  retirement  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  being  able  to  contribute,  by  his  wisdom,  by  his  patriotism, 
by  his  experience,  by  the  weight  of  his  authority,  something  to  calm 
the  troubled  waters,  and  restore  peace  and  harmony  to  a  distracted 
country.  That  contest  waged  fiercely,  almost  savagely,  threatening 
the  peace  and  existence  of  the  Union,  until  at  last,  by  the  wise  coun 
sels  of  a  Clay,  a  Webster,  and  a  Cass,  and  the  other  leading  spirits  of 
the  country,  a  new  plan  of  conciliation  and  settlement  was  agreed 
upon,  which  again  restored  peace  to  the  Union.  The  policy  of  a  geo 
graphical  line  separating  free  territory  from  slave  territory  was  aban- 
boned  by  its  friends  only  because  they  found  themselves  without  the 
power  to  adhere  to  it,  and  carry  it  into  effect  in  good  faith.  If  that 
policy  had  been  continued,  if  the  Missouri  line  had  been  extended  to 
the  Pacific  ocean,  there  would  have  been  an  end  to  the  slavery  agita 
tion  forever — for  on  one  side  as  far  west  as  the  continent  extended  slavery 
would  have  been  prohibited,  while  on  the  other,  by  legal  implication, 
it  would  have  been  taken  for  granted  that  the  institution  of  slavery 
would  have  existed  and  continued,  and  emigration  would  have  sought 
the  one  side  of  the  line  or  the  other,  as  it  preferred  the  one  or  the 
other  class  of  domestic  and  social  institutions.  I  confess,  sir,  that  it 
was  my  opinion  then,  and  is  my  opinion  now,  that  the  extension  of 
that  line  would  have  been  favorable  to  the  Soufch,  so  far  as  any  sec 
tional  advantage  would  have  been  obtained,  if  it  be  an  advantage  to  any 
section  to  extend  its  peculiar  institutions.  Southern  men  seemed  so  to 
consider  it,  for  they  voted  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  that  policy 
of  prohibiting  slavery  on  one  side,  contented  with  a  silent  implication 
in  its  favor  on  the  other.  Northern  representatives  and  senators 


seemed  to  take  the  same  view  of  the  subject,  for  a  large  majority  of 
them  voted  against  this  geographical  policy,  and  in  lieu  of  it  insisted 
upon  a  law  prohibiting  slavery  everywhere  within  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States,  north  as  well  as  south  of  the  line  ;  and  not  only  in 
the  Territories,  but  in  the  dock  yards,  the  navy  yards,  and  all  other 
public  places  over  which  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had  exclu 
sive  jurisdiction. 

Such,  sir,  was  the  state  of  public  opinion,  as  evidenced  by  the  acts 
of  representatives  and  senators  on  the  question  of  a  geographical  line 
by  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  compromise,  as  it  is  called,  from  1848 
to  1850,  which  caused  it  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  compromise  mea 
sures  of  1850  to  be  substituted  in  its  place.  Those  measures  are 
familiar  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country.  They  are  predicated  upon 
the  abandonment  of  a  geographical  line,  and  upon  the  great  principle 
of  self-government  in  the  Territories,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States 
over  the  question  of  slavery,  as  well  as  of  over  all  other  matters  of 
local  and  domestic  concern.  Inasmuch  as  the  time-honored  and  vene 
rated  policy  of  a  geographical  line  had  been  abandoned,  the  great 
leaders  of  the  Senate,  and  the  great  Commoners  in  the  other  House  of 
Congress, -saw  no  other  remedy  but  to  return  to  the  true  principles  of 
the  Constitution — to  those  great  principles  of  self-government  and 
popular  sovereignty  upon  which  all  free  institutions  rest — and  to 
leave  the  people  of  the  Territories  and  of  the  States  free  to  decide  the 
slavery  question,  as  well  as  all  other  questions,  for  themselves. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  one  of  those  who  concurred  cheerfully  and 
heartily  in  this  new  line  of  policy  marked  out  by  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  Having  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  former 
policy  of  a  geographical  line,  for  want  of  ability  to  carry  it  out,  I 
joined  with  the  great  patriots  to  whom  I  have  alluded,  to  calm  and 
quiet  the  country  by  the  adoption  of  a  policy  more  congenial  to  my 
views  of  free  institutions,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  healing  and 
harmonizing  the  strife  and  controversy  which  then  existed,  but  for 
the  further  purpose  of  providing  a  rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come 
which  would  avoid  sectional  strife  and  sectional  controversy  in  the 
future.  It  was  one  of  the  great  merits  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850 — indeed,  it  was  their  chief  merit — that  they  furnished  a  prin 
ciple,  a  rule  of  action  which  should  apply  everywhere,  north  and 
south  of  36°  30',  not  only  to  the  territory  which  we  then  had,  but  to 
all  that  we  might  afterwards  acquire,  and  thus,  if  that  principle  was 
adhered  to,  prevent  any  strife,  any  controversy,  any  sectional  agita 
tion  in  the  future.  The  object  was  to  localize,  not  to  nationalize,  the 
controversy  in  regard  to  slavery,  to  make  it  a  question  for  each  State 
and  each  Territory  to  decide  for  itself,  without  any  other  State,  or 
any  other  Territory,  or  the  federal  government,  or  any  outside  power, 
interfering,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  influence  or  control  the  result. 

My  course  upon  those  measures  created,  at  first,  great  excitement, 
and  I  may  say  great  indignation,  at  my  own  home,  so  that  it  became 
necessary  for  me  to  go  before  the  people  and  vindicate  my  action.  I 
made  a  speech  at  Chicago  upon  my  return  home,  in  which  I  stated 
the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  as  I  have  now 
stated  them  here,  and  vindicated  them  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  It 


is  enough  to  say  that,  upon  sober  reflection,  the  people  of  Illinois  ap 
proved  the  course  which  I  then  pursued ;  and  when  the  legislature 
came  together,  they  passed,  with  great  unanimity,  resolutions  endors 
ing  emphatically  the  principle  of  those  measures. 

In  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  the  question  arose,  what  principle  was  to  apply 
to  those  Territories  ?  It  was  true  they  both  lay  north  of  the  line  of 
36°  30' ;  but  it  was  also  true  that,  four  years  before,  the  policy  of  a 
geographical  line  had  been  abandoned  and  repudiated  by  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States,  and  in  lieu  of  it  the  plan  of  leaving  each 
Territory  free  to  decide  the  question  for  itself  had  been  adopted.  I 
felt  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  a  senator  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  I 
will  say  as  a  member  of  the  democratic  party,  to  adhere  in  good 
faith  to  the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  to 
apply  them  to  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  well  as  to  the  other  Terri 
tories.  To  show  that  I  was  bound  to  pursue  this  course,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  refer  to  the  public  incidents  of  those  times.  In  the 
presidential  election  of  1852,  the  great  political  parties  of  that  day 
each  nominated  its  candidate  for  the  presidency  upon  a  platform 
which  endorsed  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  both  pledged 
themselves  to  carry  them  out  in  good  faith  in  all  future  times  in  the 
organization  of  all  new  Territories.  The  whig  party  adopted  that 
platform  at  Baltimore,  and  placed  General  Scott,  their  candidate, 
upon  it.  The  democratic  party  adopted  a  platform  identical  in  prin 
ciple,,  so  far  as  this  question  was  concerned,  and  elected  General 
Pierce  President  of  the  United  States  upon  it.  Thus  the  whig  party 
and  the  democratic  party  each  stood  pledged  to  apply  this  principle 
in  the  organization  of  all  new  Territories.  Not  only  was  I  as  a  dem 
ocrat — as  a  senator  who  voted  for  their  adoption — bound  to  apply 
their  principle  to  this  case  ;  but,  as  a  senator  from  Illinois,  I  was 
under  an  imperative  obligation,  if  I  desired  to  obey  the  will  and  carry 
out  the  wishes  of  my  constituents,  to  apply  the  same  principle.  To 
show  the  views  of  my  legislature  upon  that  subject,  I  will  read  one 
resolution,  which  was  passed  at  the  session  of  1851  : 

"  Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of  the  people  to 
form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose  ;  that  this  great  privilege,  the 
birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  secured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors,  ought 
to  be  extended  to  future  generations  ;  and  that  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this 
power  in  the  organization  of  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  or  a  State  constitution  :  Provided,  The  government  so  established  shall  be  repub 
lican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution." 

That  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  sixty-one  in  the  affirma 
tive  and  only  four  in  the  negative.  I  undertake  to  say  that  resolu 
tion  spoke  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Illinois ;  and  I,  as  their 
senator,  was  only  carrying  out  their  sentiments  and  wishes  by  apply 
ing  this  principle  to  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  This 
principle  was  appled  in  that  bill  in  the  precise  language  of  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850,  except  the  addition  of  a  clause  removing 
from  the  statute-book  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act,  as  being 
inconsistent  with  that  principle,  and  declaring  that  it  was  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Ter 
ritory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 


thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions 
in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the-  United 
States. 

Now,  sir,  the  question  arises  whether  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
which  has  been  presented  here  for  our  acceptance,  is  in  accordance 
with  this  principle  embodied  in  the  compromise  measures,  and  clearly 
defined  in  the  organic  act  of  Kansas.  Have  the  people  of  Kansas 
been  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu 
tions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution?  Is  the 
Lecompton  constitution  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  ? 
x  Does  it  embody  their  will  ?  If  not,  you  have  no  constitutional  right 
to  impose  it  upon  them.  If  it  does  embody  their  will,  if  it  is 
their  act  and  deed,  you  have,  then,  aright  to  waive  any  irregularities 
that  may  have  occurred,  and  receive  the  State  into  the  Union.  This 
is  the  main  point,  in  my  estimation,  upon  which  the  vote  of  the 
Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  ought  to  depend  in  the 
decision  of  the  Kansas  question.  Now,  is  there  a  man  within  the 
hearing  of  my  voice  who  believes  that  the  Lecompton  constitution 
does  embody  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  bona  fide  inhabitants  of 
Kansas  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  that  it  does  embody  that  will  ? 

We  are  told  that  it  was  made  by  a  convention  assembled  at  Lecomp 
ton  in  September  last,  and  has  been  submitted  to  the  people  tor  rati 
fication  or  rejection.  How  submitted?  In  a  manner  that  allowed 
every  man  to  vote  for  it,  but  precluded  the  possibility  of  any  man  voting 
against  it.  We  are  told  that  there  is  a  majority  of  about  five  thousand 
five  hundred  votes  recorded  in  its  favor  under  these  circumstances.  I 
refrain  from  going  into  the  evidence  which  has  been  taken  before  the 
commission  recently  held  in  Kansas  to  show  what  proportion  of  these 
votes  were  fraudulent ;  but,  supposing  them  all  to  have  been  legal, 
bona  fide  residents,  what  does  that  fact  prove,  when  the  people  on  that 
occasion  were  allowed  only  to  vote  for,  and  could  not  vote  against, 
the  constitution?  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  a  vote  of  the  people  in 
pursuance  of  law,  on  the  4th  of  January  last,  when  this  constitution 
was  submitted  by  the  legislature  to  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejec 
tion,  showing  a  majority  of  more  than  ten  thousand  against  it.  If 
you  grant  that  both  these  elections  were  valid,  if  you  grant  that  the 
votes  were  legal  and  fair,  yet  the  majority  is  about  two  to  one  against 
this  constitution.  Here  is  evidence  to  my  mind  conclusive  that  this 
Lecompton  constitution  is  not  the  embodiment  of  the  popular  will  of 
Kansas.  How  is  this  evidence  to  be  rebutted  ?  By  the  assumption 
that  the  election  on  the  21st  of  December,  where  the  voters  were 
allowed  to  vote  for  it,  but  not  against  it,  was  a  legal  election ;  and  that 
the  election  on  the  4th  of  January,  where  the  people  were  allowed  to 
vote  for  or  against  the  constitution  as  they  chose,  was  not  a  legal  and 
valid  election. 

Sir,  where  do  you  find  your  evidence  of  the  legality  of  the  election 
of  the  21st  of  December?  Under  what  law  was  that  election  held? 
Under  no  law,  except  the  decree  of  the  Lecompton  convention.  Did 
that  convention  possess  legislative  power  ?  Did  it  possess  any  author 
ity  to  prescribe  an  election  law?  That  convention  possessed  only 
such  power  as  it  derived  from  the  territorial  legislature  in  the  act 
authorizing  the  assembling  of  the  convention  ;  and  I  submit  that  the 


9 

same  authority,  the  same  power,  existed  in  the  territorial  legislature 
to  order  an  election  on  the  4th  of  January  as  existed  in  the  conven 
tion  to  order  one  on  the  21  et  of  December.  The  legislature  had  the 
same  power  over  the  whole  subject  on  the  17th  of  December,  when  it 
passed  a  law  for  the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  that 
it  had  on  the  19th  of  February,  when  it  enacted  the  statute  for  the 
assembling  of  the  convention. 

The  convention  assembled  under  the  authority  of  the  ^territorial 
legislature  alone,  and  hence  was  bound  to  conduct  all  its  proceedings 
in  conformity  with,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  authority  of  the 
legislature.  The  moment  the  convention  attempted  to  put  its  consti 
tution  into  operation  against  the  authority  of  the  territorial  legisla 
ture,  it  committed  an  act  of  rebellion  against  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  But  we  are  told  by  the  President  that  at  the  time  the 
territorial  legislature  passed  the  law  submitting  the  whole  constitution 
to  the  people,  the  Territory  had  been  prepared  for  admission  into  the 
Union  as  a  State.  How  prepared?  By  what  authority  prepared? 
Not  by  the  authority  of  any  act  of  Congress — by  no  other  authority 
than  that  of  the  territorial  legislature;  and  clearly  a  convention 
assembled  under  that  authority  could  do  no  acfrto  subvert  the  territo 
rial  legislature  which  brought  the  convention  into  existence. 

But  gentlemen  assume  that  the  organic  act  of  the  Territory  was  an 
enabling  act ;  that  it  delegated  to  the  legislature  all  the  power  that 
Congress  had  to  authorize  the  assembling  of  a  convention.  Although 
I  dissent  from  this  doctrine,  I  am  willing,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu 
ment,  to  assume  it  to  be  correct ;  and  if  it  be  correct,  to  what  conclu 
sion  does  it  lead  us  ?  It  only  substitutes  the  territorial  legislature 
for  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  gives  validity  to  the  convention  \ 
and  therefore  the  legislature  would  have  just  the  same  right  that 
Congress  otherwise  would  have  had,  and  no  more,  and  no  less.  Sup 
pose  now  that  Congress  had  passed  an  enabling  act,  and  a  convention1 
had  been  called,  and  a  constitution  framed  under  it ;  but  three  days 
before  that  constitution  was  to  take  effect,  Congress  should  pass- 
another  act  repealing  the  convention  law,  and  submitting  the  consti 
tution  to  the  vote  of  the  people :  would  it  be  denied  that  the  act  of 
Congress  submitting  the  constitution  would  be  a  valid  act  ?  If  Con 
gress  would  have  authority  thus  to  interpose,  and  submit  the  consti 
tution  to  the  vote  of  the  people,  it  clearly  follows  that  if  the  legislature 
stood  in  the  place  of  Congress,  and  was  vested  with  the  power  which 
Congress  had  on  the  subject,  it  had  the  same  right  to  interpose,  and 
submit  this  constitution  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection. 

Therefore,  sir,  if  you  judge  this  constitution  by  the  technical  rules 
of  law,  it  was  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people 
of  Kansas,  and  it  became  null  and  void ;  and  you  are  called  upon 
now  to  give  vitality  to  a  void,  rejected,  repudiated  constitution.  If, 
however,  you  set  aside  the  technicalities  of  law,  and  approach  it  in 
the  spirit  of  statesmanship,  in  the  spirit  of  justice  and  of  iairness, 
with  an  eye  single  to  ascertain  what  is  the  wish  and  the  will  of  that 
people,  you  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Lecompton  constitu 
tion  does  not  embody  that  will. 

Sir,  we  have  heard  the  argument  over  and  over  aga:n,  that  the 
Lecompton  convention  were  justified  in  withholding  this  constitution 


10 

from  submission  to  the  people,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been 
voted  down  if  it  had  been  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or 
rejection.  We  are  told  that  there  was  a  large  majority  of  free  State 
men  in  the  Territory,  who  would  have  voted  down  the  constitution  if 
they  had  got  a  chance,  and  that  is  the  excuse  for  not  allowing  the 
people  to  vote  upon  it.  That  is  an  admission  that  this  constitution  is 
not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  ;  that  it  does  not  embody 
their  will ;  and  yet  you  are  called  upon  to  give  it  force  and  vitality  ; 
to  make  it  the  fundamental  law  of  Kansas  with  a  knowledge  that  it 
is  not  the  will  of  the  people,  and  misrepresents  their  wishes.  I  ask 
you,  sir,  where  is  your  right,  under  our  principles  of  government,  to 
force  a  constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people  ?  You  may  resort  to  all 
the  evidence  that  you  can  obtain,  from  every  source  that  you  please, 
and  you  are  driven  to  the  same  conclusion.  (The  confusion  created 
by  the  large  number  of  persons  in  the  galleries  endeavoring  to  find 
places  where  they  could  see  and  hear,  and  others  pressing  in,  was  so 
great  that  the  honorable  senator  could  hardly  make  himself  heard.) 

Mr.  STUART.  I  am  aware  of  the  very  great  difficulty  of  preserving 
order ;  but  still  I  think  that,  by  a  suggestion  from  the  Chair,  gentle 
men  in  the  galleries  and  about  the  lobbies  would  do  it.  They  can  do 
it  if  they  will.  The  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  speaks  with  dif 
ficulty,  at  any  rate,  and  I  hope  there  will  be  sufficient  order  preserved 
that  he  may  be  heard. 

The  YICE  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  observed  a  good  deal  of  dis 
order  about  the  central  door  of  the  main  gallery.  It  is  quite  obvious 
that  there  are  as  many  persons  there  as  can  stand  now,  and  therefore 
it  would  be  well  for  gentlemen  not  to  press  in.  They  are  respectfully 
requested  to  preserve  order  and  decorum. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  If  further  evidence  was  necessary  to  show  that  the 
Lecompton  constitution  is  not  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  you 
find  it  in  the  action  of  the  legislature  of  that  Territory.  On  the  first 
Monday  in  October  an  election  took  place  for  members  of  the  territo 
rial  legislature.  It  was  a  severe  struggle  between  the  two  great 
parties  in  the  Territory.  On  a  fair  test,  and  at  the  fairest  election,  as 
is  conceded  on  all  hands,  ever  held  in  the  Territory,  a  legislature 
was  elected.  That  legislature  came  together  and  remonstrated,  by  an 
overwhelming  majority,  against  this  constitution,  as  not  being  the  act 
and  deed  of  that  people,  and  not  embodying  their  will.  Ask  the  late 
governor  of  the  Territory,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  it  is  a  mockery  to 
call  this  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people.  Ask  the  secretary  of  the 
Territory,  ex-governor  Stanton,  and  he  will  tell  you  the  same  thing. 
I  will  hazard  the  prediction,  that  if  you  ask  governor  Denver  to-day, 
he  will  tell  you,  if  he  answers  at  all,  that  it  is  a  mockery,  nay,  a 
crime,  to  attempt  to  enforce  this  constitution  as  an  embodiment  of  the 
will  of  that  people.  Ask,  then,  your  official  agents  in  the  Territory  ; 
ask  the  legislature  elected  by  the  people  at  the  last  election  ;  con 
sult  the  poll-books  on  a  fair-  election  held  in  pursuance  of  law  ; 
consult  private  citizens  from  there  ;  consult  whatever  sources  of  in 
formation  you  please,  and  you  get  the  same  answer — that  this  con 
stitution  does  not  embody  the  public  will,  is  not  the  act  and  deed  of 
the  people,  does  not  represent  their  wishes  ;  and  hence  I  deny  your 


11 

right,  your  authority,  to  make  it  their  organic  law.  If  the  Lecomp- 
toD  constitution  ever  becomes  the  organic  law  of  the  State  of  Kansas, 
it  will  be  the  act  of  Congress  that  makes  it  so,  and  not  the  act  or  will 
of  the  people  of  Kansas.  v 

But  we  are  told  that  it  is  a  matter  of  but  small  moment  whether 
the  constitution  embodies  the  public  will  or  not,  because  it  can  be  mod 
ified  and  changed  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  any  time  as  soon  as 
they  are  admitted  into  the  Union.  Sir,  it  matters  not  whether  it  can 
be  changed  or  cannot  be  changed,  so  far  as  the  principle  involved  is 
concerned.  It  matters  not  whether  this  constitution  is  to  be  the  per 
manent  fundamental  law  of  Kansas,  or  is  to  last  only  a  day,  or  a 
month,  or  a  year  ;  because,  if  it  is  not  their  act  and  deed  you  have  no 
right  to  force  it  upon  them  for  a  single  day.  If  you  have  the  power 
to  force  it  upon  this  people  for  one  day,  you  may  do  it  for  a  year,  for 
ten  years,  or  permanently.  The  principle  involved  is  the  same.  It 
is  as  much  a  violation  of  fundamental  principle,  a  violation  of  popular 
sovereignty,  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to 
force  a  State  constitution  on  an  unwilling  people  for  a  day,  as  it  is  for 
a  year  or  for  a  longer  time.  When  you  set  the  example  of  violating 
the  fundamental  principles  of  free  government,  even  for  a  short  period, 
you  have  made  a  precedent  that  will  enable  unscrupulous  men  in  fu 
ture  times,  under  high  partisan  excitement,  to  subvert  all  the  other 
great  principles  upon  which  our  institutions  rest. 

But,  sir,  is  it  true  that  this  constitution  may  be  changed  imme 
diately  by  the  people  of  Kansas  ?  The  President  of  the  United  States 
tells  us  that  the  people  can  make  and  unmake  constitutions  at  pleasure  ; 
that  the  people  have  no  right  to  tie  their  own  hands  and  prohibit  a 
change  of  the  constitution  until  1864,  or  any  other  period ;  that  the 
right  of  change  always  exists,  and  that  the  change  may  be  made  by 
the  people  at  any  time  in  their  own  way,  at  pleasure,  by  the  consent 
of  the  legislature.  I  do  not  agree  that  the  people  cannot  tie  their 
own  hands.  I  hold  that  a  constitution  is  a  social  compact  between  all 
the  people  of  the  State  that  adopts  it ;  between  each  man  in  the  State, 
and  every  other  man  ;  binding  upon  them  all ;  and  they  have  a  right 
to  say  it  shall  only  be  changed  at  a  particular  time  and  in  a  particular 
manner,  and  then  only  after  such  and  such  periods  of  deliberation. 
Not  only  have  they  a  right  to  do  this,  but  it  is  wise  that  the  funda 
mental  law  should  have  some  stability,  some  permanency,  and  not  be 
liable  to  fluctuation  and  change  by  every  ebullition  of  passion. 

This  constitution  provides  that,  after  the  year  1864  it  may  be 
changed  by  the  legislature  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  house,  sub 
mitting  to  the  people  the  question  whether  they  will  hold  a  convention 
for  the  purpose  of  amending  the  constitution.  I  hold  that,  when  a 
constitution  provides  one  time  of  change,  by  every  rule  of  interpreta 
tion  it  excludes  all  other  times  ;  and  when  it  prescribes  one  mode  of 
change,  it  excludes  all  other  modes.  I  hold  that  it  is  the  fair  intend- 
ment  and  interpretation  of  this  constitution  that  it  is  not  to  be  changed 
until  after  the  year  1684,  and  then  only  in  the  manner  prescribed  in 
the  instrument.  If  it  were  true  that  this  constitution  was  the  act  and 
deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas — if  it  were  true  that  it  embodied  their 
will — I  hold  that  such  a  provision  against  change  for  a  sufficient 


12 

length  of  time  to  enable  the  people  to  test  its  practical  workings  would 
be  a  wise  provision,  and  not  liable  to  objection.  That  people  are  not 
capable  of  self-government  who  cannot  make  a  constitution  under 
which  they  are  willing  to  live  for  a  period  of  six  years  without  change. 
I  do  not  object  that  this  constitution  cannot  be  changed  until  after 
1864,  provided  you  show  me  that  it  be  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people, 
and  embodies  their  will  now.  If  it  be  not  their  act  and  deed,  you 
have  no  right  to  fix  it  upon  them  for  a  day — not  for  an  hour — not  for 
an  instant ;  for  it  is  a  violation  of  the  great  principle  of  free  govern 
ment  to  force  it  upon  them. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  tells  us  that  he  sees  no  objection 
to  inserting  a  clause  in  the  act  of  admission  declaratory  of  the  right 
of  the  people  of  Kansas,  with  the  consent  of  the  first  legislature,  to 
change  this  constitution,  notwithstanding  the  provision  which  it  con 
tains,  that  it  shall  not  be  changed  until  after  the  year  1864.  Where 
does  Congress  get  power  to  intervene  and  change  a  provision  in  the 
constitution  of  a  State?  If  this  constitution  declares,  as  I  insist  it 
does,  that  it  shall  not  be  changed  until  after  1864,  what  right  has 
Congress  to  intervene,  to  alter,  or  annul  that  provision  prohibiting 
alteration?  If  you  can  annul  one  provision,  you  may  another,  and 
another,  and  another,  until  you  have  destroyed  the  entire  instrument. 
I  deny  your  right  to  annul ;  I  deny  your  right  to  change,  or  even  to 
construe  the  meaning  of  a  single  clause  of  this  constitution.  If  it  be  the 
act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  becomes  their  fundamen 
tal  law,  it  is  sacred ;  you  have  no  right  to  touch  it,  no  right  to  con- 
.strue  it,  no  right  to  determine  its  meaning  ;  it  is  theirs,  not  yours. 
You  must  take  it  as  it  is,  or  reject  it  as  a  whole  ;  but  put  not  your 
•jsacriligious  hands  upon  the  instrument  if  it  be  their  act  and  deed. 
Whenever  this  government  undertakes  to  construe  State  constitutions 
and  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  State  to  act  in  a  different 
manner  from  that  provided  in  their  constitution  ;  whenever  it  under 
takes  to  give  a  meaning  to  a  clause  of  a  State  constitution,  which  that 
State  has  not  given  ;  when'ever  the  government  undertakes  to  do  that, 
and  its  right  is  acknowledged,  farewell  to  State  rights,  farewell  to 
.State  sovereignty  ;  your  States  become  mere  provinces,  dependencies, 
with  no  more  independence  and  no  more  rights  than  the  counties  of 
the  different  States.  This  doctrine,  that  Congress  may  intervene, 
and  annul,  construe,  or  change  a  clause  in  a  State  constitution,  sub 
verts  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our  complex  system  of 
government  rests. 

Upon  this  point,  the  Committee  on  Territories,  in  the  majority  re 
port,  find  themselves  constrained  to  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
President.  They  see  no  necessity,  and,  if  I  understand  the  report,  no 
legal  authority  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  construe  this 
or  any  other  provision  of  the  constitution  ;  but  the  distinguished  gen 
tleman  who  makes  the  report  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  has, 
in  his  own  estimation,  obviated  all  objection  by  finding  a  clause  in  the 
constitution  of  Kansas,  which  he  thinks  remedies  the  whole  evil.  It 
is  in  the  bill  of  rights,  and  is  in  these  words : 

"  All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  and  all  free  governments  are  founded  OD 
their  authority,  and  instituted  for  their  benefit ;  and,  therefore,  they  have  at  all  times  an  in- 


13 

alienable  and  ndefeasible  right  to  alter,  reform,  or  abolish  their  form  of  government  in  such 
•a  manner  as  they  may  think  proper." 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will  pause  for  a 
moment.  The  Sergeant-at-arms  will  go  up  and  close  the  centre  door 
-of  the  ladies'  gallery ;  shut  it,  and  keep  it  shut,  so  as  to  admit  no 
more  persons  there. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  appears  to  be  some  difficulty  at  the  southern 
door  of  the  eastern  gallery,  and  I  hope  the  Chair  will  direct  that  to 
be  closed. 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  sent  an  officer  to  that  door  to 
close  it,  and  preserve  quiet  there.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will 
proceed. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  senator  from  Missouri,  who  makes  the  report  of 
the  majority  of  the  committee,  is  under  the  impression  that  this  clause 
in  the  bill  of  rights  overrides  and  changes  the  provision  in  the  Le- 
compton  constitution,  which  declares  that  there  shall  be  no  change 
until  after  1864,  and  then  only  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  legislature. 
How  does  he  make  that  override  the  prohibition  ?  By  taking  the 
clause  in  the  bill  of  rights,  which  is  intended  only  to  assert  abstract 
rights  that  may  be  exercised  by  the  people  when  driven  to  the  last 
resort,  to  wit :  to  revolution.  That  is  an  abstract  principle,  intended 
to  assert  the  right  in  the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  form  of 
government,  under  the  same  law,  the  same  authority  that  our  ancestors 
resisted  British  power,  and  overthrew  the  British  authority  upon  this 
continent.  It  was  under  that  principle  that  our  fathers  threw  the  tea 
into  Boston  harbor.  It  was  under  that  principle  that  our  fathers 
burnt  up  the  stamps,  and  sent  the  stamp  agents  out  of  the  country. 
It  was  under  that  principle  that  our  fathers  resorted  to  arms  to  main 
tain  the  right  to  change  their  form  of  government  from  a  monarchy 
to  a  republic — change  by  revolution,  because  they  had  arrived  at  the 
point  where  resistance  was  a  less  evil  than  submission.  That  the 
people  have  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  God  of  arms  to  overthrow  the 
power  that  oppresses  them,  and  change  their  form  of  government 
whenever  their  oppressions  are  intolerable,  and  resistance  is  a  less  evil 
than  submission,  is  a  great  truth  that  no  republican,  no  democrat,  no 
citizen  of  a  free  country,  should  ever  question.  But,  sir,  that  clause 
was  never  intended  to  furnish  the  lawful  mode  by  which  this  consti 
tution  could  be  changed,  for  the  reason  that  the  same  instrument 
points  out  a  different  mode  than  the  one  therein  asserted  ;  and  when 
a  specific  mode  is  prescribed,  and  time  is  to  elapse  before  that  mode 
can  be  resorted  to>  that  excludes  the  idea  that  it  can  be  done  in  any 
other  mode,  or  at  a  prior  time. 

But,  sir,  this  article  from  the  bill  of  rights  proves  entirely  too 
much.  The  President  says  you  may  put  into  this  bill  a  clause  recog 
nizing  the  right  of  the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  constitution 
by  the  consent  of  the  first  legislature.  What  does  the  bill  of  rights 
say  ?  That  it  is  the  inalienable  and  indefeasible  right  of  the  people, 
at  al'l  times,  to  alter,  abolish,  or  reform  their  form  of  government  in 
such  manner  as  they  may  think  proper,  not  in  such  manner  as  the 
legislature  shall  prescribe,  not  at  such  time  as  the  legislative  authority 
or  the  existing  government  may  provide,  but  in  such  manner  as  the 


14 

people  think  proper  in  town  meeting,  in  convention,  through  the  leg 
islature,  in  popular  assemblages,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  in  any 
manner  the  people  themselves  may  determine.     That  is  the  right  and 
the  nature  of  the  right  authorized  by  this  bill  of  rights.     It  is  the 
revolutionary  remedy,  not  the  lawful  mode.     There  are  two  modes  of 
changing  the  constitution  of  a  State  ;  one  lawful,  the  other  revolu 
tionary.     The  lawful  mode  is  the  one  prescribed  in  the  instrument. 
The  revolutionary  mode  is  one  in  violation  of  the  instrument.     The 
revolutionary  mode  may  be  peaceful,  or  may  be  forcible  ;  that  depends 
on  whether  there  is  resistance.     If  a  people  are  unanimous  in  favor  of 
a  change,  if  nobody  opposes  it,  the  revolutionary  means  may  be  a 
peaceful  remedy  ;  but  if,  in  the  progress  of  the  revolution,  while  you 
are  making  the  change,  you  meet  with  resistance,  then  it  becomes 
civil  war,  treason,  rebellion,  if  you  fail,  and  a  successful  revolution  if 
you  succeed. 

I  say,  then,  the  mode  pointed  out  in  the  bill  of  rights  is  the  revo 
lutionary  mode,  and  not  the  lawful  means  provided  in  the  instrument ; 
but  if  the  Committee  on  Territories  be  right  in  saying  that  this  is 
a  lawful  mode,  then  the  recommendation  of  the  President,  that  Con 
gress  should  recognize  the  right  to  do  it  by  the  first  legislature,  vio 
lates  this  constitution.  Why?  The  President  recommends  us  to 
recognize  their  rights  through  the  legislature,  and  in  that  mode  alone. 
The  bill  of  rights  says  the  people  shall  do  it  in  such  manner  as  they 
please.  If  the  construction  given  by  the  Committee  on  Territo 
ries  be  right,  you  dare  not  vote  for  the  President's  proposition  to 
recognize  the  right  of  the  first  legislature  to  do  it,  for  you  give  a  con 
struction  to  the  instrument  in  violation  of  its  terms. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  allow  me  to  inter 
rupt  him  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  With  a  great  deal  of  pleasure. 
Mr.  HAMMOND.  I  understood  the  senator  to  say  just  now  that  Con 
gress  had  no  right  to  look  into  the  constitution  of  a  State  and  place 
a  construction  upon  it.  If  that  be  true,  I  would  inquire  of  the  senator 
from  Illinois,  how  is  Congress  to  know  whether  a  constitution  is  re 
publican  or  not  ?  If  it  be  true,  I  would  inquire  of  him,  further,  why  is 
he  here  now  discussing  and  placing  a  construction  upon  the  constitu 
tion  of  Kansas? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  will  take  great  pleasure  in  answering  the  gentle 
man  from  South  Carolina.  I  have  a  right  to  look  into  this  constitu 
tion  to  see  whether,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  republican.  I  have  this  right 
to  look  at  it  only  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  my  vote.  The  judg 
ment  on  which  I  base  my  vote  is  one  binding  on  nobody  but  myself.  I 
am  talking  now,  not  on  forming  a  construction  by  which  members  of 
Congress  are  to  govern  themselves,  but  I  am  speaking  of  your  right  to 
place  a  construction  on  this  constitution  binding  upon  the  people  and 
government  of  Kansas.  Give  me  the  power  to  construe  the  constitu 
tion  of  Kansas  authoritatively,  and  then  I  have  the  power  to  change 
it,  to  alter  it,  to  annul  it,  to  make  it  mean  what  I  please,  and  not 
what  they  mean. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  I  should  have  thought  that  the  senator  would  have 
denounced  the  attempt  to  construe  the  constitution,  and  left  the  mat- 


ter  there,  after  having  asserted  that  no  such  power  exists  ;  but  when 
he  goes  on  to  construe  it  himself,  he  is  inconsistent  with  his  first  prop 
osition  that  there  is  no  right  to  construe  it. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  No,  sir,  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  con 
strue  it  authoritatively  for  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  am  not  denying 
the  right  of  the  senator  from  of  South  Carolina  to  put  his  own  con 
struction  upon  it.  I  am  not  denying  the  right  of  each  senator  here 
to  make  up  his  own  mind  in  regard  to  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  each 
senator  here  to  do  that  for  himself ;  but  that  is  only  to  satisfy  his  own 
judgment  and  his  own  conscience  in  regulating  his  vote  upon  the 
question.  The  point  I  am  arguing  is,  whether  this  Congress  has 
any  power,  by  a  rule  of  construction,  to  change  the  constitution 
of  a  State,  and  make  its  construction  binding  on  the  authori 
ties  and  people  of  that  State.  I  repeat,  if  this  Congress  can  exercise 
that  power,  there  is  an  end  of  State  rights,  an  end  of  State  sovereignty; 
this  government  becomes  a  consolidated  government,  an  empire,  a 
central  power,  with  provinces  and  dependencies,  and  ceases  to  be  a  con 
federation  of  sovereign  and  independent  States.  I  am  arguing  against 
the  propriety  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  recommendation  of  the 
President  to  strike  that  fatal  blow  at  the  severeignty  of  the  States  of 
this  Union. 

But,  sir,  my  friend  from  Ohio,  who  cannot  accede  quite  to  this  doc 
trine  of  the  President  any  more  than  the  Committee  on  Territories 
can,  proposes  to  remedy  this  matter  in  a  different  way.  He  has  offered 
an  amendment,  which  I  ask  the  Clerk  to  read. 

The  Clerk  read  the  following  amendment,  intended  to  be  proposed 
l>y  Mr.  PUGH,  to  the  amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr. 
GREEN  to  the  bill  (S.  No.  161)  "  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Kansas  into  the  Union  :  At  the  end  thereof  add  the  following  section  : 

"  SEC  .  — .  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  admission  of  the  States  of  Minnesota  and 
Kunsas  into  the  Union,  by  this  act,  shall  never  be  so  construed  as  to  deny,  limit,  or  other 
wise  impair,  the  right  of  tJie  people  of  the  said  States,  with  the  assent  of  their  legislatures, 
severally,  at  all  times,  to  alter,  reform,  or  abolish  their  form  of  government,  in  such  manner 
as  they  may  think  proper,  so  that  the  same  be  still  republican  and  in  accordance  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. " 

••  Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  object  my  friend  from 
Ohio  expects  to  accomplish  by  this  proviso,  that  nothing  in  the  act  of 
admission  shall  be  construed  to  deny,  limit,  or  otherwise  impair,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  change  their  constitution.  Who  ever  dreamed 
that  there  was  anything  in  the  act  of  admission  which  could  be  so 
construed?  It  is  not  the  act  of  admission  to  which  we  are  alluding  ; 
it  is  the  provision  in  this  constitution  which  says  it  shall  not  be 
changed  until  after  1864. 

Nobody  pretends  that  you  can  put  anything  in  the  act  of  admission 
which  would  limit  this  right.  What  I  am  denying  is  your  right  to 
put  anything  in  the  act  of  admission  either  to  limit  or  extend  or  con 
strue  the  constitution.  Nobody  pretends  that  this  act  of  admission 
affects  this  point  at  all.  The  objection,  if  it  be  an  objection,  is  in  the 
constitution  itself,  not  in  the  act  of  admission. 

Then  what  legal  effect  would  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from 
Ohio  have,  if  it  should  be  adopted  ?  I  presume  no  one  pretends  that 
it  would  have  any  legal  effect.  Is  there  a  senator  here  who  pretends 


16 

that  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio  would 
confer  any  power  or  authority  on  the  people  of  Kansas' to  change  their 
constitution  which  they  would  not  have  without  it  ?  I  am  informed 
the  senator  from  Ohio  said,  in  his  speech  in  explanation  of  it,  that  it 
did  not  confer  any  right  which  the  people  would  not  otherwise  have. 
Then  why  adopt  it?  I  can  conceive  of  but  one  motive,  and  that  is  to 
lead  the  people  to  infer  that  they  have  secured  a  right  by  that  proviso 
which  they  really  have  not  got — to  lead  them  to  suppose  that  they 
have  gained  an  advantage  which  in  reality  they  do  not  possess.  Is 
that  the  object?  Is  it  the  object  to  obviate  an  objection,  and  yet  in 
fact  to  leave  the  objection  in  full  force  ?  Why,  I  ask,  is  it  proposed 
to  put  that  amendment  in  the  bill  if  it  has  no  legitimate  effect — if  it 
does  not  give  the  people  any  right,  any  privilege,  which  they  would 
not  possess  without  it?  Perhaps  I  may  be  asked,  on  the  contrary, 
what  is  the  objection  to  putting  it  in?  It  may  be  said  it  is  only  the 
expression  of  the  individual  opinion  of  the  members  of  Congress.  I 
will  tell  you  my  objection  to  putting  this  clause  in  the  act  of  admis 
sion.  I  object  to  inserting  any  clause  in  the  act  of  admission  that 
expresses  any  opinion,  one  way  or  the  other,  in  respect  to  the  pro 
priety  of  any  provision  in  the  constitution.  If  you  may  pronounce 
judgment  on  the  propriety  ofs  one  clause,  although  it  has  no  legal 
effect  to  change  it,  you  may  on  the  propriety  of  another  clause.  Sup 
pose,  for  instance,  the  senator  from  New  York  should  offer  an  amend 
ment  that  nothing  contained  in  this  act  of  admission  shall  be  con 
strued  to  sanction  or  tolerate  the  right  to  hold  property  in  man  ;  or 
that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  authorize  or  permit 
slaveholding  in  said  State ;  or  should  propose  to  insert  an  opinion  that 
slaveholding  was  a  crime ;  would  southern  men  think  there  was  no 
objection  to  it  because  it  had  no  legal  effect  ?  Are  you  willing  that 
Congress  shall  set  the  example  of  inserting,  in  acts  of  admission, 
clauses  that  pronounce  judgment  against  the  domestic  institutions  of 
a  State?  Are  you  willing  that  a  Congress  composed  of  a  majority  of 
free-State  men  shall  put  clauses  in  an  act  of  admission  condemning 
slaveholding  ?  Or,  if  we  were  a  minority,  would  we  be  willing  that 
you  should  put  a  clause  in  an  act  of  admission  condemning  our  free 
institutions  ? 

Now,  sir,  I  hold  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  pronounce  its  opinion 
even  upon  the  propriety  of  any  local  or  domestic  institution  of  any 
State  of  this  Union.  Each  State  is  sovereign,  with  the  unlimited  and 
unrestricted  power  and  right  to  manage  its  local  and  internal  concerns 
to  suit  itself,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  warn  gentlemen  that  when,  in  order  to  catch  a  little 
popular  favor,  they  set  the  example  of  backing  up  a  vote  in  favor  of 
this  enormous  fraud  by  putting  a  clause  in  the  bill  having  no  legal 
effect,  but  expressing  opinions  upon  the  propriety  of  this  or  that  clause 
of  a  State  constitution,  they  are  setting  an  example  that  may  return 
upon  them  in  a  way  that  will  not  be  pleasant.  I  protest  against  Con 
gress  interfering  either  to  annul  or  construe,  or  express  opinions  upon 
the  propriety  of  this  clause  or  that  clause  of  the  constitution.  I  repeat,^ 
if  the  constitution  be  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  if 
its  provisions  are  not  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


17 

States,  that  people  had  a  right  to  put  them  there  ;  and  you  have  no- 
right  to  touch  them  or  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  come  back  to  the  question :  ought  we  to  receive 
Kansas  into  the  Union  with  the  Lecompton  constitution  ?  Is  there 
satisfactory  evidence  that  it  is  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people  ?  that 
it  embodies  their  will  ?  Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the  people 
of  that  Territory  have  been  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way?  I  think  not.  I  do  not 
acknowledge  the  propriety,  or  justice,  or  force  of  that  special  pleading 
which  attempts,  by  technicalities,  to  fasten  a  constitution  upon  a  peo 
ple  which,  it  is  admitted,  they  would  have  voted  down  if  they  had  had 
a  chance  to  do  so,  and  which  does  not  embody  their  will.  Let  me  ask 
gentlemen  from  the  south,  if  the  case  had  been  reversed,  would  they 
have  taken  the  same  view  of  the  subject  ?  Suppose  it  were  ascertained, 
beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  that  three-fourths  of  the  people  of  Kansas  were 
in  favor  of  a  slaveholding  State,  and  a  convention  had  been  assembled 
by  just  such  means  and  under  just  such  circumstances  as  brought  the 
Lecompton  convention  together  ;  and  suppose  that  when  they  assem 
bled  it  was  ascertained  that  three-fourths  of  the  convention  were  free- 
soilers,  while  three-fourths  of  the  people  were  in  favor  of  a  slaveholding 
State  ;  suppose  an  election  took  place  in  the  Territory  during  the  sitting 
of  the  convention,  which  developed  the  fact  that  the  convention  did  not 
represent  the  people  ;  suppose  that  convention  of  free-soilers  had  pro 
ceeded  to  make  a  constitution  and  allowed  the  people  to  vote  for  it, 
but  not  against  it,  and  thus  forced  a  free-soil  constitution  upon  a- 
slaveholding  people  against  their  will — would  you,  gentlemen  from 
the  south,  have  submitted  to  the  outrage?  Would  you  have  come  up 
here  and  demanded  that  the  free-soil  constitution — adopted  at  an 
election  where  all  the  affirmative  votes  were  received,  and  all  the 
negative  votes  rejected,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been  voted 
down  if  the  negative  votes  had  been  received — should  be  accepted  ? 
Would  you  have  said  that  it  was  fair,  that  it  was  honest,  to  force  an 
abolition  constitution  on  a  slaveholding  people  against  their  will  ? 
Would  you  not  have  come  forward  and  have  said  to  us  that  you  denied 
that  it  was  the  embodiment  of  the  public  will,  and  demanded  that  it 
should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  to  be  voted  upon,  so  as  to  ascertain 
the  fact  ?  Would  you  not  have  said  to  us  that  you  were  willing  to 
live  up  to  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  leave  the  people  per 
fectly  free  to  form  such  institutions  as  they  please ;  and  that  if  we 
would  only  send  that  constitution  back  and  let  the  people  have  a  fair 
vote  upon  it,  you  would  abide  the  result?  Suppose  we,  being  a 
northern  majority,  had  said  to  you  :  "No ;  we  have  secured  a  sectional 
advantage  and  we  intend  to  hold  it ;  and  we  will  force  this  constitu 
tion  upon  an  unwilling  people,  merely  because  we  have  the  power  to 
do  it ;"  would  you  have  said  that  was  fair? 

Mr.  HAMMOND.     Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  answer  him  ? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.     Certainly. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  As  the  senator  looked  towards  me  in  asking  his 
question,  I  will  undertake,  though  without  authority,  to  answer  for 
the  slaveholding  community.  If,  having  had  the  power  to  establish 
a  slaveholding  constitution,  we  had  refrained  from  exercising  it,  and 


18 

those  in  favor  of  a  free  State  constitution  had  established  one  to  that 
effect,  I  say  that  the  slaveholders  would  have  submitted  to  it,  until 
through  the  forms  of  constitutional  law  they  could  have  altered  it. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  senator  assumes  what  I  did  not  certainly  intend, 
when  he  says  that  I  looked  at  him.  I  was  propounding  the  question, 
however,  to  any  senator,  and  am  as  willing  that  the  senator  from 
South  Carolina  should  reply  as  any  other.  He  assumes  as  true,  for 
the  purposes  of  his  answer,  the  very  fact  that  is  denied — that  they  had 
the  power. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.    Asserted  on  all  hands,  sir. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.   What  ? 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Asserted  that  there  was  a  free  State  majority  when 
the  convention  was  elected. 

Mr.  BROWN.    The  senator  from  Illinois  asserted  it  to-night. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Yes  ;  and  I  assert  now  that  there  was  a  free  State 
majority  ;  and  I  assert,  also,  that  one  half  the  counties  of  the  Terri 
tory  were  disfranchised,  and  not  allowed  to  vote  at  the  election  of 
delegates.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

Mr.  HAMMOND.    That  has  been  answered  over  and  over  again 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  senator  from  South  Carolina  will  pause 
until  order  is  restored. 

Mr.  MASON.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  privilege.  If  there  is  again 
disorder  in  this  chamber,  I  shall  insist  upon  the  galleries  being  cleared. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  hope  that  order  will  be  enforced.  The  Senate  is  not 
a  theatre. 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  The  statement  just  made  by  the  senator  from  Illinois 
is  a  great  mistake,  and  I  shall  take  issue  with  him  when  he  sits  down. 
I  say  it  is  not  true  in  any  sense,  and  I  will  answer  it. 

Mr.  MASON.    Mr.  President 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  senator  from  Virginia  gives  notice  that 
if  there  be  a  repetition  of  the  demonstrations  in  the  galleries  he  will 
move  to  clear  them. 

Mr.  MASON.  If  there  is  again  disorder  in  the  galleries,  let  it  arise 
from  what  source  it  may,  I  shall  ask  the  Chair  to  enforce  the  order  of 
the  Senate. 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  Before  the  debate  commenced,  the  Chair  ex 
pressed  the  hope  that  these  demonstrations  would  not  occur.  He  did 
not  then  think  that  he  would  have  to  repeat  the  expression  of  that 
hope.  This  floor  is  covered  by  persons  not  members  of  the  Senate, 
admitted  by  the  consent  of  the  body  unanimously,  and  certainly 
something  is  due  to  the  courtesy  of  the  Senate.  The  Chair  does  not 
believe  these  demonstrations  will  be  repeated,  and  therefore  takes  no 
further  notice  of  what  has  occurred.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will 
proceed. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  interposition  of  the  denial  that  about  one  half  of 
the  counties  were  disfranchised,  I  presume,  can  have  but  very  little 
weight  on  the  argument.  It  has  been  proven  over  and  over  again.  In 
my  estimation  the  proof  is  conclusive  as  to  the  fifteen  counties,  and 
satisfactory,  I  think,  as  to  nineteen,  being  half  the  counties  of  the 
Territory,  that  there  was  not  such  a  census  and  registration  as  author 
ized  a  vote  for  delegates.  It  has  been  attempted  to  be  proved,  how- 


19 

ever,  that  there  was  not  a  great  many  votes  in  those  counties.  I 
believe  the  president  of  the  convention  estimates  that  there  were  not 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  in  those  counties.  Sup 
pose  that  was  all.  There  were  only  a  little  over  two  thousand  votes 
polled  at  the  election  of  delegates  in  the  other  nineteen  counties  which 
elected  all  the  delegates.  If  the  disfranchised  counties  contained 
fifteen  hundred  voters,  is  it  not  conclusive  that,  with  the  addition  of 
five  or  six  hundred  persons  in  the  other  counties,  they  could  have 
changed  the  result  ?  Having  been  disfranchised  in  one-half  the  coun 
ties,  the  friends  of  those  who  were  disfranchised  may  not  have  voted 
in  the  other  counties,  because  they  had  no  hope  of  overcoming  the  ma 
jority  in  the  other  half.  I  did  not  intend  to  go  into  the  argument  on 
that  point  again  ;  and  I  should  not  have  alluded  to  it  now  but  for  the 
fact  that  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  had  to  assume  as  true,  what 
I  understood  not  to  be  true,  in  order  to  predicate  his  answer  upon  it, 
that  he,  as  a  southern  man,  would  vote  to  admit  the  State  if  the  case 
had  been  reversed,  and  a  free-State  constitution  was  being  forced  upon 
an  unwilling  people,  with  the  knowledge  that  it  did  not  reflect  the 
sentiments  of  that  people. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Allow  me  to  say  that,  if  the  slaveholders,  under 
these  circumstances,  had  never  had  a  majority  at  all,  they  would, 
nevertheless,  have  submitted  unl/il  they  could  alter  the  constitution, 
if  they  could  possibly  do  it. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  can  only  say,  then,  that  they  are  a  very  submissive 
people.  [Daughter.] 

Mr.  HAMMOND.     Not  at  all. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  have  never  seen  the  day  when  I  would  be  willing 
to  submit  to  the  action  of  a  minority  forcing  a  constitution  on  an  un 
willing  people  against  their  will  because  it  had  got  an  advantage.  It 
violates  the  fundamental  principle  of  government  ;  it  violates  the 
foundations  on  which  all  free  government  rests  ;  it  is  a  proposition  in 
violation  of  the  democratic  creed  ;  in  violation  of  the  republ ican  creed; 
in  violation  of  the  American  creed  ;  in  violation  of  the  creed  of  every 
party  which  professes  to  be  governed  by  the  principles  of  free  institu 
tions  and  fair  elections. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  say  one  word  more? 
If  the  slaveholders,  under  the  circumstances  that  he  stated,  were  a  mi 
nority,  they  would  have  submitted.  If  they  were  a  majority,  as  I 
assume,  they  would  have  submitted  until,  under  the  forms  of  constitu 
tional  law,  they  could  have  properly  asserted  their  power. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS".  I  understood  the  senator  to  say  that ;  I  must  say  to 
him  that  I  would  rather  not  repeat  questions  on  the  same  point  over 
and  over  again.  I  am  very  feeble  to-night,  and  shall  probably  not  have 
strength  enough  to  go  through  with  my  remarks.  I  only  desire  to  say 
on  that^oint,  that  I  regard  the  principle  involved  here  as  vital  and 
fundamental,  as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  all  free  government,  and 
the  violation  of  it  as  a  death  blow  to  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty. 
But,  sir,  I  pass  on.  If  you  admit  Kansas  with  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  you  also  admit  her  with  the  State  government  which 
has  been  brought  into  existence  under  it.  Is  the  evidence  satisfac 
tory  that  that  State  government  has  been  fairly  and  honestly  elected  ? 


26 

Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the  elections  were  fairly  and  honestly 
held,  and  fairly  and  honestly  returned  ?  You  have  all  seen  the  evi 
dence  showing  the  fraudulent  voting  ;  the  forged  returns,  from  pre 
cinct  after  precinct,  changing  the  result  not  only  upon  the  legislative 
ticket,  but  also  upon  the  ticket  for  Governor  and  State  officers.  The 
false  returns  in  regard  to  Delaware  Crossing,  changing  the  complexion 
of  the  Legislature,  are  admitted.  The  evidence  is  equally  conclusive 
as  to  the  Shawnee  precinct,  the  Oxford  precinct,  the  Kickapoo  pre 
cinct,  and  many  others,,  making  a  difference  of  some  three  thousand 
votes  in  the  general  aggregate,  and  changing  the  whole  result  of  the 
election.  Yet,  sir,  we  are  called  upon  to  admit  Kansas  with  the  State 
government  thus  brought  into  existence  not  only  by  fraudulent  voting, 
but  forged  returns,  sustained  by  perjury.  The  Senate  well  recollects 
the  efforts  that  I  made  before  the  subject  was  referred  to  the  committee, 
and  since,  to  ascertain  to  whom  certificates  of  election  were  awarded, 
that  we  might  know  whether  they  were  given  to  the  men  honestly 
elected,  or  to  the  men  whose  elections  depended  upon  forgery  and 
perjury.  Can  any  one  tell  me  now  to  whom  those  certificates  have 
been  issued,  if  they  have  been  issued  at  all  ?  Can  any  man  tell  me 
whether  we  are  installing,  by  receiving  this  State  government,  officers 
whose  sole  title  depends  upon  forgery,  or  those  whose  title  depends 
upon  popular  votes  ?  We  have  been  calling  for  that  information  for 
about  three  months,  but  we  have  called  in  vain.  One  day  the  rumor 
would  be  that  Mr.  Calhoun  would  declare  the  free-State  ticket  elected, 
and  next  day  that  he  would  declare  the  pro-slavery  ticket  elected.  So 
it  has  alternated,  like  the  chills  and  fever,  day  after  day,  until  within 
the  last  three  days,  when  the  action  of  Congress  became  a  little  du 
bious,  when  it  was  doubtful  whether  Northern  men  were  willing  to 
vote  for  a  State  government  depending  on  forgery  and  perjury,  and 
then  we  find  that  the  president  of  the  Lecompton  convention  addresses 
a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Star,  a  newspaper  in  this  city,  telling  what 
he  thinks  is  the  result  of  the  election.  He  says  it  is  true  that  he  has 
received  no  answer  to  his  letters  of  inquiry  to  Governor  Denver  ;  he 
has  no  official  information  on  the  subject,  but,  from  rumors  and  un 
official  information,  he  is  now  satisfied  that  the  Delaware  Crossing 
return  was  a  fraud  ;  that  it  will  be  set  aside  ;  and  that,  accordingly, 
the  result  will  be  that  certificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-State  men. 
I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  Mr.  Calhoun  may  think  such  will  be  the 
result ;  but  while  he  may  think  so,  I  would  rather  know  how  the  fact 
is.  His  thoughts  are  not  important,  but  the  fact  is  vital  in  establish 
ing  the  honesty  or  dishonesty  of  the  State  government  which  we  are 
about  to  recognize.  It  so  happens  that  Mr.  Calhoun  has  no  more 
power,  no  more  authority  over  that  question  now,  than  the  Senator 
from  Missouri,  or  any  other  member  of  this  body.  The  celebrated 
Lecompton  schedule  provides  that — 

*'  In  case  of  removal,  ABSENCE,  or  disability  of  the  president  of  this  convention  to  dis 
charge  the  duties  herein  imposed  on  him,  the  president  pro  tempore  of  this  convention  shall 
perform  said  duties  ;  and  in  case  of  absence,  refusal,  or  disability  of  the  president  pro  temporc, 
a  committee  consisting  of  seven,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  discharge  the  duties  required 
of  the  president  of  this  convention." 

As  Mr.  Calhoun  is  absent  from  the  Territory,  and,  by  reason  of  that 
absence,  is  deprived  of  all  authority  over  the  subject-matter,  and  as 


21 

the  president  pro  temporehsis  succeeded  to  his  powers,  is  it  satisfactory 
for  the  deposed  president  to  address  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Star 
announcing  his  private  opinion  as  to  who  has  been  elected  ?  I  should 
like  to  know  who  the  president  pro  tempore  is  and  where  he  is  ;  and  if 
he  is  in  Kansas,  whether  he  has  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  which 
the  ex-president  Calhoun  has  announced.  I  should  like  to  know 
whether  that  president  pro  fempore  has  already  issued  his  certificate 
to  the  pro-slavery  men  in  Kansas,  while  Mr.  Calhoun  expresses  the 
opinion  in  the  Star  that  the  certificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-State 
men  ?  If  that  president  pro  tempore  has  become  a  fugitive  from  justice, 
and  escaped  from  the  Territory,  I  should  like  then  to  know  who  are 
the  committee  of  seven  that  were  to  take  his  place  ;  and  whether  they,, 
or  a  majority  of  them,  have  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  to  which 
Mr.  Calhoun  has  come?  Inasmuch  as  this  opinion  is  published  to 
the  world  just  before  the  vote  is  to  be  taken  here,  and  is  expected  to 
catch  the  votes  of  some  green  members  of  one  body  or  the  other,  I 
should  like  to  know  whether  certificates  have  been  issued  ?  and,  if  so, 
by  whom,  and  to  whom  ?  where  the  president  pro  tempore  is  ?  where 
the  committee  of  seven  may  be  found  ?  and  then  we  might  know  who 
constitute  the  Legislature,  and  who  constitute  the  State  government, 
which  we  are  to  bring  into  being.  We  are  not  only  to  admit  Kansas 
with  a  constitution,  but  with  a  State  government ;  with  a  governor, 
a  legislature,  a  judiciary ;  with  executive,  legislative,  judicial,  and 
ministerial  officers.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  told  by  the  President,  that 
the  first  legislature  may  take  steps  to  call  a  convention  to  change  the 
constitution,  I  should  like  to  know  of  whom  that  legislature  is  com 
posed  ?  Inasm  fhe.  governor  would  have  the  power  to  veto  an 
act  of  the  legLv  t  ;  g  calling  a  convention,  I  should  like  to  know  who 
is  governor,  so  that  I  may  judge  whether  he  would  veto  such  an  act? 
Cannot  our  good  friends  get  the  president  pro  tempore  of  the  conven 
tion  to  write  a  letter  to  the  Star  ?  Can  they  not  procure  a  letter  from 
the  committee  of  seven  ?  Can  they  not  clear  up  this  mystery,  and 
relieve  our  suspicious  minds  of  anything  unfair  or  foul  in  the  arrange 
ment  of  this  matter  ?  Let  us  know  how  the  fact  is. 

This  publication  of  itself  is  calculated  to  create  more  apprehension 
then  there  was  before.  As  long  as  Mr.  Calhoun  took  the  ground  that 
he  would  never  declare  the  result  until  Lecompton  was  admitted,  and 
that  if  it  was  nr'  admitted,  he  would  never  make  the  decision,  there 
seemed  to  be  some  reason  in  his  course ;  but  when,  after  taking  that 
ground  for  months,  it  became  understood  that  Lecompton  was  dead, 
or  was  lingering  and  languishing,  and  likely  to  die,  and  when  a  few 
more  votes  were  necessary,  and  a  pretext  was  necessary  to  be  given, 
in  order  to  secure  them,  we  find  this  letter  published  by  the  deposed 
ex-president,  giving  his  opinion  when  he  had  no  power  over  the  sub 
ject  ;  and  when  it  appears  by  the  constitution  itself  that  another  man 
or  another  body  of  men  has  the  decision  in  their  hands,  it  is  calcu 
lated  to  arouse  our  suspicions  as  to  what  the  result  will  be  after  Le 
compton  is  admitted. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  bill,  before  I  was 
compelled  to  absent  myself  from  the  Senate  on  account  of  sickness, 
and  I  presume  the  same  has  been  the  case  during  my  absence,  much 


22 

was  said  on  the  slavery  question  in  connection  with  the  admission 
of  Kansas.  Many  gentlemen  have  lahored  to  produce  the  impression 
that  the  whole  opposition  to  the  admission  arises  out  of  the  fact  that 
the  Lecompton  constitution  makes  Kansas  a  slave  State.  I  am  sure  that 
no  gentleman  here  will  do  me  the  injustice  to  assert  or  suppose  that 
my  opposition  is  predicated  on  that  consideration,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  my  speech  against  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton 
constitution  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December,  two  weeks  before 
the  vote  was  taken  upon  the  slavery  clause  in  Kansas,  and  when  the 
general  impression  was  that  the  pro-slavery  clause  would  be  excluded. 
I  predicated  my  opposition  then,  as  I  do  now,  upon  the  ground  that 
it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  government,  a 
violation  of  popular  sovereignty,  a  violation  of  the  Democratic  plat 
form,  a  violation  of  all  party  platforms,  and  a  fatal  blow  to  the  inde 
pendence  of  the  new  States.  I  told  you  then  that  you  had  no  more 
right  to  force  a  free-State  constitution  upon  a  people  against  their  will 
than  you  had  to  force  a  slave-State  constitution.  Will  gentlemen  say 
that,  on  the  other  side,  slavery  has  no  influence  in  producing  that 
united,  almost  unanimous  support  which  we  find  from  gentlemen 
living  in  one  section  of  the  Union  in  favor  of  the  Lecompton  consti 
tution?  If  slavery  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  would  there  have  been 
so  much  hesitation  about  Mr.  Calhoun's  declaring  the  result  of  the 
election  prior  to  the  vote  in  Congress?  I  submit,  then,  whether  we 
ought  not  to  discard  the  slavery  question  altogether,  and  approach 
the  real  question  before  us  fairly,  calmly,  dispassionately,  and  decide 
whether,  but  for  the  slavery  clause,  this  Lecompton  constitution  could 
receive  a  single  vote  in  either  House  of  Congress.  Were  it  not  for 
the  slavery  clause,  would  there  be  any  objection  to  sending  it  back  to 
the  people  for  a  vote  ?  Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  clause,  would  there 
be  any  objection  to  letting  Kansas  wait  until  she  had  ninety  thousand 
people,  instead  of  coming  into  the  Union  with  not  over  forty-five  or 
fifty  thousand  ?  Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  question,  would  Kansas 
have  occupied  any  considerable  portion  of  our  thoughts  ?  would  it 
have  divided  and  distracted  political  parties  so  as  to  create  bitter  and 
acrimonious  feelings  ?  I  say  now  to  our  southern  friends,  that  I  will 
act  on  this  question  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for  them 
selves,  irrespective  of  the  fact  whether  they  decide  for  or  against 
slavery,  provided  it  be  submitted  to  a  fair  vote  at  a  fair  election,  and 
with  honest  returns. 

In  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I  desire  to  allude. 
I  seldom  refer  to  the  course  of  newspapers,  or  notice  the  articles  which 
they  publish  in  regard  to  myself ;  but  the  course  of  the  Washington 
Union  has  been  so  extraordinary,  for  the  last  two  or  three  months, 
that  I  think  it  well  enough  to  make  some  allusion  to  it.  It  has  read 
me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  every  other  day,  at  least,  for  two  or 
three  months,  and  keeps  reading  me  out,  (laughter  :)  and,  as  if  it  had 
not  succeeded,  still  continues  to  read  me  out,  using  such  terms  as 
"  traitor/'  "  renegade,"  "  deserter,"  and  other  kind  and  polite  epi 
thets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  «no  vindication  to  make  of  my  de 
mocracy  against  the  Washington  Union,  or  any  other  newspapers.  I 
willing  am  to  allow  my  history  and  action  for  the  last  twenty  years  to 


23 

speak  for  themselves  as  to  my  political  principles,  and  my  fidelity  to 
political  obligations.  The  Washington  Union  has  a  personal  grievance. 
When  its  editor  was  nominated  for  Public  Printer  I  declined  to  vote 
for  him,  and  stated  that  at  some  time  I  might  give  my  reasons  for 
doing  so.  Since  I  declined  to  give  that  vote,  this  scurrilous  abuse, 
these  vindictive  and  constant  attacks  have  been  repeated  almost  daily 
on  me.  Will  my  friend  from  Michigan  read  the  article  to  which  I 
allude. 

Mr.  STUART  read  the  following  editorial  article  from  the  Washing 
ton  Union  of  November  17",  1857  : 

FREE  SOILISM. — The  primary  object  of  all  government,  in  its  original  institution,  is  the  pro 
tection  of  person  and  property.  It  is  for  this  alone  that  men  surrender  a  portion  of  their 
natural  rights. 

"In  order  that  this  object  may  be  fully  accomplished,  it  is  necessary  that  this  protection 
should  be  equally  extended  to  all  classes  of  free  citizens  without  exception.  This,  at 
least,  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  is  the 
original  compact  on  which  all  our  institutions  are  based. 

"Slaves  were  recognized  as  property  in  the  British  colonies  of  North  America  by  the 
government  of  Great  Britain,  by  the  colonial  laws  and  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Under  these  sanctions  vested  rights  have  accrued  to  the  amount  of  some  sixteen 
hundred  million  dollars.  It  is,  therefore,  the  duty  of  Congress  and  the  State  legislature 
to  protect  that  property. 

"  The  Constitution  declares  that  '  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States.'  Every  citizen  of  one  State 
coming  into  another  State  has,  therefore,  a  right  to  the  protection  of  his  person,  and  that 
property  which  is  recognized  as  such  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  any  law  of 
a  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  So  far  from  any  State  having  a  right  to  deprive 
him  of  this  property,  it  is  its  bounden  duty  to  protect  him  in  its  possession. 

"  If  these  views  are  correct — and  we  believe  it  would  be  difficult  to  invalidate  them — it 
follows  that  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  a  citizen  of  one 
State  from  settling  in  another,  and  bringing  his  slave  property  with  him,  and  most  espe 
cially  declaring  it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  a  government 
which,  as  before  stated,  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property,  and  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  declares  that  « the  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States,'  among  the  most  essential  of  which  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property, 

"What  is  recognized  as  property  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  a  pro 
vision  which  applies  equally  to  all  the  States,  has  an  inalienable  right  to  be  protected  in 
all  the  States."  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"The  protection  of  property  being,  next  to  that  of  person,  the  most  important  object 
of  all  good  government,  and  property  in  slaves  being  recognized  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  as  well  as  originally  by  all  the  old  thirteen  States,  we  have  never 
doubted  that  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in  those  States  where  it  previously  existed,  by  an 
arbitrary  act  of  the  legislature,  was  a  gross  violation  of  the  rights  of  property." 

"  The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  Northern  States  was  then,  as  previously  stated,  a  gross  out 
rage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  a  voluntary  relinquishment  on  the  part 
of  the  owners.  It  was  an  act  of  coercive  legislation." 

' '  This  measure  of  emancipation  was  the  parent  or  the  offspring  of  a  doctrine  which  may 
be  so  extended  as  to  place  the  property  of  every  man  in  the  community  at  the  mercy  of 
rabid  fanaticism  or  political  expediency.  It  is  only  to  substitute  scruples  of  conscience 
in  place  of  established  constitutional  principle,  and  all  laws  and  all  constitutions  become 
a  dead  letter.  The  rights  of  persons  and  property  become  subservient,  not  to  laws  and 
constitutions,  but  to  fanatical  dogmas,  and  thus  the  end  and  object  of  all  good  govern 
ment  is  completely  frustrated.  There  is  no  longer  any  rule  of  law  nor  any  constitutional 
guide  ;  and  the  people  are  left  to  the  discretion,  or  rather  the  madness,  of  a  school  of 
instructors  who  can  neither  comprehend  their  own  dogmas  nor  make  them  comprehensible 
to  others."  *  *  *  *  * 

"  Where  is  all  this  to  end?  and  what  security  have  the  free  citizens  of  the  United  States 
that  their  dearest  rights  may  not,  one  after  another,  be  offered  up  at  the  shrine  of  the 
demon  of  fanaticism,  the  most  dangerous  of  all  the  enemies  of  freedom  ?  the  Consti 
tution  is  no  longer  to  be  our  guide  and  protector,  where  shall  we  find  barriers  to  defend 
us  against  a  system  of  legislation  restrained  by  no  laws  and  no  constitutions,  which 
creates  crimes  at  pleasure,  punishes  them  at  will,  and  sacrifices  the  rights  of  persons  and 


24 

property  to  a  dogma,  or  a  scruple  of  conscience  ?  All  this  is  but  the  old  laws  of  Puritan 
ism  now  fomenting  and  souring  in  the  exhausted  beer-barrel  of  Massachusetts.  The 
descendants  of  this  race  of  ecclesiastical  tyrants,  or  rather  ecclesiastical  slaves,  have 
spread  over  the  western  part  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  throughout  all  the  new  States, 
where  they  have,  to  some  extent,  disseminated  their  manners,  habits,  and  principles,  most 
especially  their  blind  subserviency  to  old  idols,  and  their  abject  subjection  to  their  priests. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  they  aspire  to  give  tone  and  character  to  the  whole  confederacy, 
and  believe  that  their  dream  will  be  realized  ?  We  are  pretty  well  convinced,  however, 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  never  become  a  nation  of  fanatical  Puritans." 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  proposi 
tions  advanced  boldly  by  the  Washington  Union  editorially  and  ap 
parently  authoritatively,  and  every  man  who  questions  any  of  them  is 
denounced  as  an  abolitionist,  a  free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The  proposi 
tions  are,  first,  that  the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original 
institution  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property  ;  second,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
in  the  several  States;  and  that,  therefore,  thirdly,  all  State  laws, 
whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of  one  State 
from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  de 
claring  it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of 
the  government  and  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ;  and  fourth, 
that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  northern  States  was  a  gross 
outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it  was  involuntarily 
done  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 

Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  Union  on  the  1*7 th 
of  November,  and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article  giving  the 
adhesion  of  the  Union  to  the  Lecompton  constitution.  It  was  in  these 
words : 

"KANSAS  AND  HER  CONSTITUTION. — The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The  problem  is  solved. 
The  dread  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to  Kansas  affairs  is  over  and 
gone." 

and  a  column  nearly  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look 
into  the  Lecompton  constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incorpo 
rated  in  it  which  was  put  forth  editorially  in  the  Union.  What  is  it? 

"ARTICLE  7.  Section  1.  The  right  of  property  is  before  and  higher  than  any  constitutional 
sanction ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its  increase  is  the  same  and 
as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner  of  any  property  whatever." 

Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  constitution  may  be 
amended  after  1864  by  a  two-thirds  vote, 

"  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right  of  property  in  the  ownership  of  slaves.' 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton  constitution,  that 
they  are  identical  in  spirit  with  this  authoritative  article  in  the  Wash 
ington  Union  of  the  day  previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  constitu 
tion,  and  every  man  is  branded  as  a  free-soiler  and  abolitionist  who 
does  not  subscribe  to  them.  The  proposition  is  advanced  that  the 
emancipation  acts  of  New  York,  of  New  England,  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  of  New  Jersey,  were  unconstitutional,  were  outrages  upon  the 
right  of  property,  were  violations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  proposition  is  advanced  that  a  southern  man  has  a  right 
to  move  from  South  Carolina,  with  his  negroes,  into  Illinois,  to  settle 
there  and  hold  them  there  as  slaves,  anything  in  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  Illinois  to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  The  proposition  is, 


that  a  citizen  of  Virginia  lias  rights  in  a  free  State,  which  a  citizen  of 
a  free  State  cannot  himself  have.  We  prohibit  ourselves  from  hold 
ing  slaves  within  our  own  limits  ;  and  yet,  according  to  this  doctrine, 
a  citizen  of  Kentucky  can  move  into  our  State,  bring  in  one  hundred, 
slaves  with  him,  and  hold  them  as  such  in  defiance  of  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  our  own  State.  If  that  proposition  is  true,  the  creed  r,f 
the  democratic  party  is  false.  The  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  is,  that  "each  State  and  each  Territory  shall  be  left  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  its  domestic  institutions  in  its  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  I  claim  that  Illinois 
has  the  sovereign  right  to  prohibit  slavery,  a  right  as  undeniable  as 
that  the  sovereignty  of  Virginia  may  authorize  its  existence.  We 
have  the  same  right  to  prohibit  it  that  you  have  j*>  recognize  and 
protect  it.  Each  State  is  sovereign  within  its  own  sphere  of  powers, 
sovereign  in  respect  to  its  own  domestic  and  local  institutions  and 
internal  concerns.  So  long  as  you  regulate  your  local  institutions  to 
suit  yourselves,  we  are  content ;  but  when  you  claim  the  right  to 
override  our  laws  and  our  constitution,  and  deny  our  right  to  form 
our  institutions  to  suit  ourselves,  I  protest  against  it.  The  same 
doctrine  is  asserted  in  this  Lecompton  constitution.  There,  it  is 
stated  that  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  is  "  before  and  higher  than 
any  constitutional  sanction." 

Mr.  President,  I  recognize  the  right  of  the  slaveholding  States  to 
regulate  their  local  institutions,  to  claim  the  services  of  their  slaves 
under  their  own  State  laws,  and  I  am  prepared  to  perform  each  and 
every  one  of  my  obligations  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  respect  to  them  ;  but  I  do  not  admit,  and  I  do  not  think 
they  are  safe  in  asserting,  that  their  right  of  property  in  slaves  is 
higher  than  and  above  constitutional  sanction,  is  independent  of 
constitutional  obligations.  When  you  rely  upon  the  Constitution  and 
upon  your  own  laws,  you  are  safe.  When  you  go  beyond  and  above 
constitutional  obligations,  I  know  not  where  your  safety  is.  If  this 
doctrine  be  true,  that  slavery  is  higher  than  the  Constitution,  and 
above  the  Constitution,  it  necessarily  follows  that  a  State  cannot 
abolish  it,  cannot  prohibit  it,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Washington 
Union,  that  the  emancipation  laws  were  outrages  on  the  rights  of 
property,  and  violations  of  the  Constitution,  becomes  the  law. 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of  November, 
followed  by  the   glorification  of  the  Lecompton  constitution  on  the 
18th  of  November,  and  this  clause  in  the  constitution  asserting  the 
doctrine  that  no  State  has  a  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its 
limits,    I   saw   that   there   was   a   fatal    blow   being   struck   at    the 
sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  a  death  blow  to^  State  rights, 
subversive  of  the  democratic  platform  and  of  the  principles   upon 
which  the  democratic  party  have  ever  stood,  and  upon  which  I  trust 
they  ever  will  stand.      Because  of  these  extraordinary  doctrines, 
declined  to  vote  for  the  editor  of  the  Washington  Union  for  public 
printer  :    and  for  that  refusal,  as  I  suppose,  I  have  been  read  out  of 
the  party  by  the  editor  of  the  Union  at  least  every  other  day  from 
that  time  to  this.     Sir,  I  submit  the  question  :  Who  has  deserved 
democratic  party  and  the  democratic  platform— he  who  stands  by  the 


26 

sovereign  right  of  the  State  to  abolish  and  prohibit  slavery  as 
it  pleases,  or  he  who  attempts  to  strike  down  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States,  and  combine  all  power  in  one  central  government,  and 
establish  an  empire  instead  of  a  confederacy  ? 

The  principles  upon  which  the  presidential  campaign  of  1856  was 
fought  are  well  known  to  the  country.  At  least,  in  Illinois,  I  think 
I  am  authorized  to  state  what  they  were  with  clearness  and  precision, 
so  far  as  the  slavery  question  is  concerned.  The  democracy  of  Illinois 
are  prepared  to  stand  on  the  platform  upon  which  the  battle  of  1856 
was  fought.  It  was — 

First.  The  migration  or  importation  of  negroes  into  the  country 
having  been  prohibited  since  1808,  never  again  to  be  renewed,  each 
State  will  take  care  of  its  own  colored  population. 

Second.  That  while  negroes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  hence  not  entitled  to  political  equality  with  whites,  they  should 
enjoy  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  they  are  capa 
ble  of  exercising,  consistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  com 
munity  where  they  live. 

Third.  That  each  State  and  Territory  must  judge  and  determine  for 
itself  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  its  rights  and  privileges. 

Fourth.  That  while  each  free  State  should  and  will  maintain  and 
protect  all  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States,  they  will,  each  for 
itself,  maintain  and  defend  its  sovereign  right  within  its  own  limits, 
to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Fifth.  That  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter  of  acceptance 
of  the  presidential  nomination,  the  Nebraska-Kansas  act  does  no  more 
than  give  the  form  of  law  to  this  elementary  principle  of  self-govern 
ment,  when  it  declares  "  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of 
a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not 
exist  within  their  limits/' 

These  were  the  general  propositions  on  which  we  maintained  the 
canvass  on  the  slavery  question — the  right  of  each  State  to  decide  for 
itself ;  that  a  negro  should  have  such  rights  as  he  was  capable  of  en 
joying,  and  could  enjoy,  consistently  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of 
society  ;  and  that  each  State  should  decide  for  itself  the  nature  and 
extent  and  description  of  those  rights  and  privileges.  Hence,  if-  you 
choose  in  North  Carolina  to  have  slaves,  it  is  your  business,  and  not 
ours.  Jf  we  choose  in  Illinois  to  prohibit  slavery,  it  is  our  right,  and 
you  must  not  interfere  with  it.  If  New  York  chooses  to  give  privi 
leges  to  the  negro  which  we  withhold,  it  is  her  right  to  extend  them, 
but  she  must  not  attempt  to  force  us  to  do  the  same  thing.  Let  each 
State  take  care  of  its  own  affairs,  mind  its  own  business,  and  let  its 
neighbors  alone,  then  there  will  be  peace  in  the  country.  Whenever 
you  attempt  to  enforce  uniformity,  and,  judging  that  a  peculiar  insti 
tution  is  good  for  you,  and  therefore  good  for  everybody  else,  try  to 
force  it  on  everybody,  you  will  find  that  there  will  be  resistance  to  the 
demand.  Our  government  was  not  formed  on  the  idea  that  there  was 
to  be  uniformity  of  local  laws  or  local  institutions.  It  was  founded 


27 

upon  the  supposition  that  there  must  be  diversity  and  variety  in  the 
institutions  and  laws.  Our  fathers  foresaw  that  the  local  insti 
tutions  which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hamshire 
would  be  ill  adapted  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina. 
They  foresaw  that  the  institutions  which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the 
mountains  and  valleys  of  Pennsylvania  would  not  suit  the  plantation 
interests  of  Virginia.  They  foresaw  that  the  great  diversity  of  cli 
mate,  of  production,  of  interests,  would  require  a  corresponding  diver 
sity  of  local  laws  and  local  institutions.  For  this  reason  they  provi 
ded  for  thirteen  separate  States,  each  with  a  separate  legislature,  and 
each  State  sovereign  within  in  own  sphere,  with  the  right  to  make  all 
its  local  laws  and  local  institutions  to  suit  itself,  on  the  supposition 
that  they  would  be  as  different  and  as  diversified  as  the  number  of 
States  themselves.  Then  the  general  government  was  made,  with  a 
Congress  having  limited  and  specified  powers,  extending  only  to  those 
subjects  which  were  national  and  not  local,  which  were  federal  and 
not  State. 

These  were  the  principles  on  which  our  institutions  were  established. 
These  are  the  principles  on  which  the  democratic  party  has  ever  fought 
its  battles.  This  attempt  now  to  establish  the  doctrine  that  a  free  State 
has  no  power  to  prohibit  slavery,  that  our  emancipation  acts  were  uncon 
stitutional  and  void,  that  they  were  outrages  on  the  rights  of  property, 
that  slavery  is  national  and  not  local,  that  it  goes  everywhere  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  is  higher  than  the  Con 
stitution,  above  the  Constitution,  beyond  the  reach  of  sovereign 
power,  existing  by  virtue  of  that  higher  law  proclaimed  by  the  Sena 
tor  from  New  York,  will  not  be  tolerated.  When  the  doctrine  of  a 
higher  law,  a  law  above  the  Constitution,  a  law  over-riding  the  Con 
stitution,  and  imposing  obligations  upon  public  men  in  defiance  of  the 
Constitution,  was  first  proclaimed  in  the  Senate,  it  was  deemed  moral 
treason  in  this  body ;  but  now  I  am  read  out  of  the  party  three  times 
a  week  by  the  Washington  Union  for  disputing  this  higher  law,  which 
is  embodied  in  the  Lecompton  constitution,  that  slavery,  the  right  to 
slavery  property,  does  not  depend  upon  human  law  nor  constitutional 
sanction,  but  is  above  and  beyond  and  before  all  constitutional  sanc 
tions  and  obligations !  I  feel  bound,  as  a  Senator  from  a  sovereign 
State,  to  repudiate  and  rebuke  this  doctrine.  I  am  bound  as  a  Demo 
crat,  bound  as  an  American  citizen,  bound  as  a  Senator  claiming  to 
represent  a  sovereign  State,  to  enter  my  protest,  and  the  protest  of  my 
constituency,  against  such  a  doctrine.  Whenever  such  a  doctrine 
shall  be  ingrafted  on  the  policy  of  this  country,  you  will  have  revolu 
tionized  the  government,  annihilated  the  sovereignty  of  the  States, 
established  a  consolidated  despotism  with  uniformity  of  local  institu 
tions,  and  that  uniformity  being  slavery,  existing  by  Divine  right, 
and  a  higher  law  beyond  the  reach  of  the  Constitution  and  of  human 
authority. 

Mr.  President,  if  my  protest  against  this  interpolation  into  the 
policy  of  this  country ,"  or  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party  is  to 
bring  me  under  the  ban,  I  am  ready  to  meet  the  issue.  I  am  told  that 
this  Lecompton  constitution  is  a  party  test,  a  party  measure  ;  that  no 
man  is  a  Democrat  who  does  not  sanction  it,  who  does  not  vote  to 


28 

bring  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  the  government  established  under 
that  constitution.  Sir,  who  made  it  a  party  test  ?  Who  made  it  a 
party  measure  ?  Certainly  the  party  has  not  assembled  in  convention 
to  ordain  any  such  thing  to  be  a  party  measure.  I  know  of  but  one 
State  convention  that  has  endorsed  it.  It  has  not  been  declared  to  be 
a  party  measure  by  State  conventions  or  by  a  national  convention,  or 
by  a  senatorial  caucus,  or  by  a  caucus  of  the  Democratic  members  of 
the  House  of  Kepresentatives.  How,  then,  came  it  to  be  a  party  meas- 
sure  ?  The  Democratic  party  laid  down  its  creed  at  its  last  national 
convention.  That  creed  is  unalterable  for  four  years,  according  to  the 
rules  and  practices  of  the  party.  Who  has  interpolated  this  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  into  the  party  platform  ? 

Oh  !  but  we  are  told  it  is  an  Administration  measure.  Because  it  is 
an  Administration  measure,  does  it  therefore  follow  that  it  is  a  party 
measure  ?  Is  it  the  right  of  an  Administration  to  declare  what  are 
party  measures  and  what  are  not  ?  That  has  been  attempted  heretofore, 
and  it  has  failed.  When  John  Tyler  prescribed  a  creed  to  the  Whig 
party,  his  right  to  do  so  was  not  respected.  When  a  certain  doc 
trine  in  regard  to  the  neutrality  laws  was  proclaimed  to  be  a  party 
measure,  my  friends  around  me  here  considered  it  a  "  grave  error," 
and  it  was  not  respected.  When  the  army  bill  was  proclaimed  an  Ad 
ministration  measure,  the  authority  to  make  it  so  was  put  at  defiance, 
and  the  Senate  rejected  it  by  a  vote  of  four  to  one,  and  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives  voted  it  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  Is  the 
Pacific  railroad  bill  a  party  measure  ?  I  should  like  to  see  whether 
the  guillotine  is  to  be  applied  to  every  recreant  democrat  who  does  not 
come  up  to  that  test.  Is  the  bankrupt  law  a  party  measure  ?  We  shall 
see,  when  the  vote  is  taken,  how  many  renegades  there  will  be  then. 
Was  the  loan  bill  an  administration  measure,  or  a  party  measure?  Is 
the  guillotine  to  be  applied  to  every  one  who  does  not  yield  implicit 
obedience  to  the  behests  of  an  administration  in  power  ?  There  is 
infinitely  more  plausibility  in  declaring  each  of  the  measures  to  which 
I  have  just  alluded  to  be  an  administration  measure,  than  in  declaring 
the  Lecompton  constitution  to  be  such.  By  what  right  does  the 
administration  take  cognizance  of  the  Lecompton  constitution  ? 

"Jhe  Constitution  of  the  United  States  says  that  "new  States  may  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  by  the  Congress  ;"  not  by  the  President,  not 
by  the  cabinet,  not  by  the  administration.  The  Lecompton  constitu 
tion  itself  says,  "this  constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  at  its  next  session  ;"  not  to  the  President,  not  to  the 
cabinet,  not  to  the  administration.  The  convention  in  Kansas  did  not 
send  it  to  the  administration,  did  not  authorize  it  to  be  sent  to  the  Presi 
dent,  but  directed  it  to  be  sent  to  Congress  ;  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States  only  got  hold  of  it  through  the  commission  of  the  surveyor 
general,  who  was  also  president  of  the  Lecompton  convention.  The 
constitution  as  made  was  ordered  to  be  sent  directly  to  Congress  ; 
Congress  having  power  to  admit  States,  and  the  President  having 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  The  moment  you  pass  a  law  admitting  a  State 
it  executes  itself.  It  is  not  a  law  to  be  executed  by  the  President  or 
by  the  administration.  It  is  the  last  measure  on  earth  that  could  be 


29 

rightfully  made-  an  administration  measure.  It  is  not  usual  for  the 
constitution  of  a  new  State  to  come  to  Congress  through  the  hand  of 
the  President.  True,  the  Minnesota  constitution  was  sent  to  the 
President  because  the  convention  of  Minnesota  directed  it  to  he  so  sent; 
and  the  President  submitted  it  to  us  without  any  recommendation. 
Because  senators  and  representatives  do  not  yield  their  judgments  and 
their  consciences,  and  how  in  abject  obedience  to  the  requirements  of 
an  Administration  in  regard  to  a  measure  on  which  the  administration 
are  not  required  to  act  at  all,  a  system  of  proscription,  of  persecution 
is  to  be  adopted  against  every  man  who  maintains  his  self-respect,  his 
own  judgment  and  his  own  conscience. 

I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  President  or  his  cabinet,,  no  mat 
ter  what  my  respect  may  be  for  them,  to  tell  me  my  duty  in  the  senate 
chamber.  The  President  has  his  duties  to  perform  under  the  Con 
stitution  ;  and  he  is  responsible  to  his  constituency.  A  senator  has 
his  duties  to  perform  here  under  the  Constitution  and  according  to 
his  oath  :  and  he  is  responsible  to  the  sovereign  State  which  he 
represents  as  his  constituency.  A  member  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  has  his  duties  under  the  Constitution  and  his  oath  ;  and  he  is 
responsible  to  the  people  that  elected  him.  The  President  has  no- 
more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  senators  than  senators  have  to  the 
President  ;  the  President  has  no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  the 
representatives  than  the  representatives  have  to  the  President.  Sup 
pose  we  here  should  attempt  to  prescribe  a  test  of  faith  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  would  he  not  rebuke  our  impertinence  and  im 
pudence  as  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ?  Would  he  not  tell  us  that  the  Constitution  and  his  oath  and 
his  conscience  were  his  guide ;  that  we'must  perform  our  duties,  and 
he  would  perform  his,  and  let  each  be  responsible  to  his  own  con 
stituency  ? 

Sir,  whenever  the  time  comes  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
can  change  the  allegiance  of  the  senators  from  the  States  to  himself,  what 
becomes  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States?  When  the  time  comes  that  a 
senator  is  to  account  to  the  executive  and  not  to  his  State,  whom  does 
he  represent  ?  If  the  will  of  my  State  is  one  way  and  the  will  of  the 
President  is  the  other,  am  I  to  be  told  that  I  must  obey  the  executive 
and  betray  my  State,  or  else  be  branded  as  a  traitor  to  the  party,  and 
hunted  down  by  all  the  newspapers  that  share  the  patronage  of  the 
government  ?  and  every  man  who  holds  a  petty  office  in  any  part  of 
my  State  to  have  the  question  put  to  him,  "  Are  you  Douglas* 
enemy?"  if  not,  "your  head  comes  off."  Why?  "  Because  he  is 
a  recreant  senator  ;  because  he  chooses  to  follow  his  judgment  and  his 
conscience,  and  represent  his  State  instead  of  obeying  my  executive 
behest."  I  should  like  to  know  what  is  the  use  of  Congresses  ;  what 
is  tae  use  of  Senates  and  Houses  of  Representatives,  when  their  highest 
duty  is  to  obey  the  executive  in  disregard  of  the  wishes,  rights,  and 
honor  of  their  constituents?  What  despotism  on  earth  would  be  equal 
to  this,  if  you  establish  the  doctrine  that  the  executive  has  a  right  to 
command  the  votes,  the  consciences,  the  judgment  of  the  senators  and 
of  the  representatives,  instead  of  their  constituents?  In  old  England, 


30 

whose  oppressions  we  thought  intolerable,  an  administration  is  hurled 
from  power  in  an  hour  when  voted  down  hy  the  representatives  of  the 
people  upon  a  government  measure.  If  the  rule  of  old  England  ap 
plied  here,  this  cabinet  would  have  gone  out  of  office  when  the  army 
bill  was  voted  down,  the  other  day,  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
There,  in  that  monarchical  country,  where  they  have  a  queen  by 
divine  right,  and  lords  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  where  republicanism 
is  supposed  to  have  but  a  slight  foothold,  the  representatives  of  the 
people  can  check  the  throne,  restrain  the  government,  change  the 
ministry,  and  give  a  new  direction  to  the  policy  of  the  government, 
without  being  accountable  to  the  king  or  the  queen.  There  the  re 
presentatives  of  the  people  are  responsible  to  their  constituents. 
Across  the  channel,  under  Louis  Napoleon,  it  may  be  otherwise  ;  yet 
I  doubt  whether  it  would  be  so  boldly  proclaimed  there  that  a  man  is 
a  traitor  for  daring  to  vote  according  to  his  sense  of  duty,  according  to 
the  will  of  his  State,  according  to  the  interests  of  his  constituents. 

Suppose  the  executive  should  tell  the  senator  from  California  [Mr. 
OWIN]  to  vote  against  his  Pacific  railroad  bill ;  would  he  obey  ?  If 
not,  he  will  be  deemed  a  rebel.  Suppose  the  executive  should  tell 
the  senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  MASON]  to  vote  for  the  Pacific  railroad 
bill,  or  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  TOOMBS]  to  vote  for  the  army 
bill,  or  the  senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr  BROWN]  to  sustain  him  on 
the  neutrality  laws  :  we  should  have  more  rebels  and  more  traitors. 
But  it  is  said  a  dispensation  is  granted,  from  the  fountain  of  all  power, 
for  rebellion  on  all  subjects  but  one.  The  President  says,  in  effect, 
"  Do  as  you  please  on  all  questions  but  one  ;"  that  one  is  Lecompton. 
On  what  principle  is  it  that  we  must  not  judge  for  ourselves  on  this 
measure,  and  may  on  everything  else  ?  I  suppose  it  is  on  the  old 
adage  that  a  man  needs  no  friends  when  he  knows  he  is  right, 
and  he  only  wants  his  friends  to  stand  by  him  when  he  is  wrong. 
The  President  says  that  he  regrets  this  constitution  was  not  sub 
mitted  to  the  people,  although  he  knows  that  if  it  had  been  sub 
mitted  it  would  have  been  rejected.  Hence  the  President  regrets 
that  it  was  not  rejected.  Would  he  regret  that  it  was  not  submitted 
and  rejected  if  he  did  not  think  it  was  wrong  ?  And  yet  he  demands 
our  assistance  in  forcing  it  on  an  unwilling  people,  and  threatens 
vengeance  on  all  who  refuse  obedience.  He  recommends  the  army 
bill ;  he  thinks  it  necessary  to  carry  on  the  Mormon  war,  it  is  neces 
sary  to  carry  out  a  measure  of  the  administration,  and  hence  it  is  an 
administration  measure  ;  but  he  does  not  quarrel  with  anybody  for 
voting  against  it.  He  thinks  every  one  of  the  other  recommendations 
to  which  I  have  alluded  is  right,  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  harm  in 
going  against  them.  The  only  harm  is  in  going  against  that  which 
the  President  acknowledges  to  be  wrong ;  and  yet  the  system  of  pro 
scription,  to  subdue  men  to  abject  obedience  to  executive  will,  is  to  be 
pursued. 

Is  it  seriously  intended  to  brand  every  democrat  in  the  United  States 
as  a  traitor  who  is  opposed  to  the  Lecompton  constitution?  If  so,  do 
your  friends  in  Pennsylvania  desire  any  traitors  to  vote  with  them  next 
fall?  We  are  traitors  if  we  vote  against  Lecompton,  our  constituents 


31 

are  traitors  if  they  do  not  think  Lecompton  is  right,  and  yet  you  expect 
those  whom  you  call  traitors  to  vote  with  and  sustain  you.  Are  you  to- 
read  out  of  the  party  every  man  who  thinks  it  wrong  to  force  a  consti 
tution  on  a  people  against  their  will  ?  If  so,  what  will  be  the  size  of 
the  administration  party  in  New  York?  what  will  it  be  in  Pennsyl 
vania?  how  many  will  it  number  in  Ohio,  or  in  Indiana,  or  in  Illinois, 
or  in  any  other  Northern  State  ?  Surely  you  do  not  expect  the  support 
of  those  whom  you  brand  as  renegades !  Would  it  not  be  well  to  allow 
all  freemen  freedom  of  thought,  freedom  of  speech,  and  freedom  of  ac 
tion?  Would  it  not  be  well  to  allow  each  senator  and  representative 
to  vote  according  to  his  judgment,  and  perform  his  duty  according  to- 
his  own  sense  of  his  obligation  to  himself,  and  to  his  State,  and  to  his- 
God? 

For  my  own  part,  Mr.  President,  come  what  may,  I  intend  to  vote, 
speak,  and  act,  according  to  my  own  sense  of  duty,  so  long  as  I  hold  a- 
seat  in  this  Chamber.  I  have  no  defence  of  my  democracy.  I  have  no- 
professions  to  make  of  my  fidelity.  I  have  no  vindication  to  make  of 
my  course.  Let  it  speak  for  itself.  The  insinuation  that  I  am  acting 
with  the  republicans,  or  Americans,  has  no  terror,  and  will  not  drive 
me  from  my  duty  or  propriety.  It  is  an  argument  for  which  I  have 
no  respect.  When  I  saw  the  senator  from  Virginia  acting  with  the 
republicans  on  the  neutrality  laws,  in  support  of  the  President,  I  did 
not  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  taunt  him  with  voting  with  those  to  whom 
he  happened  to  be  opposed  in  general  politics.  When  I  saw  the  senator 
from  Georgia  acting  with  the  republicans  upon  the  army  bill,  it  did 
not  impair  my  confidence  in  his  fidelity  to  principle.  When  I  see  sen 
ators  here  every  day  acting  with  the  republicans  on  various  questions,, 
it  only  shows  me  that  they  have  independence  and  self-respect  enough 
to  go  according  to  their  own  convictions  of  duty,  without  being  influ 
enced  by  the  course  of  others. 

I  have  no  professions  to  make  upon  any  of  these  points.  I  intend  to 
perform  my  duty  in  accordance  with  my  own  convictions.  Neither  the 
frowns  of  power  nor  the  influence  of  patronage  will  change  my  action, 
or  drive  me  from  my  principles.  I  stand  firmly,  immovably  upon  those 
great  principles  of  self-government  and  State  sovereignty  upon  which 
the  campaign  was  fought  and  the  election  won.  I  stand  by  the  time- 
honored  principles  of  the  democratic  party,  illustrated  by  Jefferson  and 
Jackson,  those  principles  of  State  rights,  of  State  sovereignty,  of  strict 
construction,  on  which  the  great  democratic  party  has  ever  stood.  I 
will  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  all  its  com 
promises,  and  perform  all  my  obligations  under  it.  I  will  stand  by 
the  American  Union  as  it  exists  under  the  Constitution.  ^  If,  standing 
firmly  by  my  principles,  I  shall  be  driven  into  private  life,  it  is  a  fate 
that  has  no  terrors  for  me.  I  prefer  private  life,  -preserving  my  own 
self-respect  and  manhood,  to  abject  and  servile  submission  to  executive 
will.  If  the  alternative  be  private  life  or  servile  obedience  to  execu 
tive  will,  I  am  prepared  to  retire.  Official  position  has  no  charms  for 
me  when  deprived  of  that  freedom  of  thought  and  action  which  be 
comes  a  gentleman  and  a  senator. 

Mr.  President,  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  the  desultory 


manner  in  which.  I  have  discussed  this  question.  My  health  has  been 
so  feeble  for  some  time  past  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  arrange  my 
thoughts,  or  the  order  in  which  they  should  be  presented.  If,  in  the 
heat  of  debate,  I  have  expressed  a  sentiment  which  would  seem  to  be 
unkind  or  disrespectful  to  any  senator,  I  shall  regret  it.  While  I  in 
tend  to  maintain,  firmly  and  fearlessly,  my  own  views,  far  be  it  from 
me  to  impugn  the  motives  or  question  the  propriety  of  the  action  of 
any  other  senator.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  each  senator  will  obey 
the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  and  will  be  accountable  to  his  con 
stituents  for  the  course  which  he  may  think  proper  to  pursue. 


